Xcm SetAssetClaimer 1 #5585
Xcm SetAssetClaimer 1 #5585
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
…ghts/xcm/pallet_xcm_benchmarks_generic.rs
|
bot bench polkadot-pallet --subcommand=xcm --runtime=westend --pallet=pallet_xcm_benchmarks::generic |
|
@x3c41a https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/7265736 was started for your command Comment |
|
@x3c41a Command |
|
@x3c41a Command |
|
bot bench polkadot-pallet --subcommand=xcm --runtime=westend --pallet=pallet_xcm_benchmarks::generic |
|
@x3c41a https://gitlab.parity.io/parity/mirrors/polkadot-sdk/-/jobs/7266819 was started for your command Comment |
…stend --target_dir=polkadot --pallet=pallet_xcm_benchmarks::generic
|
@x3c41a Command |
|
@x3c41a Command |
|
The CI pipeline was cancelled due to failure one of the required jobs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation looks good, the unit tests look good. My ideal test for this would be:
- User in penpal a wants to reserve asset transfer some WND to a user on penpal b (through AssetHub)
- Sets amount for fees as too low and the assets are trapped on AssetHub
- Thankfully he set the claimer
- He sends a new message (using
polkadotXcm::sendbecause of theClearOriginproblem with transfers) with theClaimAssetinstruction. - With the claimed assets he can finish the send to penpal b
| @@ -98,6 +106,8 @@ mod imports { | |||
| pub type ParaToParaThroughRelayTest = Test<PenpalA, PenpalB, Westend>; | |||
| pub type ParaToParaThroughAHTest = Test<PenpalA, PenpalB, AssetHubWestend>; | |||
| pub type RelayToParaThroughAHTest = Test<Westend, PenpalA, AssetHubWestend>; | |||
| pub type BridgeToAssetHubTest = Test<BridgeHubWestend, AssetHubWestend>; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| pub type BridgeToAssetHubTest = Test<BridgeHubWestend, AssetHubWestend>; | |
| pub type BridgeHubToAssetHubTest = Test<BridgeHubWestend, AssetHubWestend>; |
| let xcm_here = Xcm::<RuntimeCall>::builder_unsafe() | ||
| .withdraw_asset((Parent, 200_000_000_000u128)) | ||
| .pay_fees((Parent, 40_000_000_000u128)) | ||
| .export_message( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This instruction is only used to send a message across a bridge. There's no need to use it here
| @@ -343,4 +343,12 @@ impl<T: frame_system::Config> pallet_xcm::WeightInfo for WeightInfo<T> { | |||
| .saturating_add(T::DbWeight::get().reads(1)) | |||
| .saturating_add(T::DbWeight::get().writes(1)) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| fn set_asset_claimer() -> Weight { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This shouldn't be here in pallet_xcm, since it's not a call you can make on the pallet. It's correct to have it in pallet-xcm-benchmarks because we use that for xcm instructions.
| fn set_asset_claimer() -> Weight { | ||
| Weight::from_parts(2_176_000, 0) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be removed. There's no call in pallet_xcm like this. This trait has a function for each pallet call but returns a weight.
| let result = vm.bench_process(xcm); | ||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(vm.asset_claimer(), Some(bob)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New line at end of file 😁
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know why this is marked as changed. Maybe a space?
Added SetAssetClaimer instruction