feat(gamm): CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries #2972

pysel · 2022-10-10T09:39:11Z

Closes: #2956

What is the purpose of the change

Adds two queries:

1 JoinSwapExactAmountIn allows you to query the amount of shares you get by providing X tokens
2 ExitSwapShareAmountIn allows you to query the amount of tokens you get when exiting pool with X shares

Testing and Verifying

added two tests

Documentation and Release Note

Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes? yes
Is a relevant changelog entry added to the Unreleased section in CHANGELOG.md? yes
How is the feature or change documented? changelog

pysel · 2022-10-10T09:42:10Z

@georgemc98 I want to clarify one thing about the second query. Currently it works by equally splitting shares among all tokens in pool and then returns respectful amount of tokens of specific denom. My question is: should it work like this or should it transform all shares just into one specific denom?

georgemc98 · 2022-10-10T15:36:58Z

@georgemc98 I want to clarify one thing about the second query. Currently it works by equally splitting shares among all tokens in pool and then returns respectful amount of tokens of specific denom. My question is: should it work like this or should it transform all shares just into one specific denom?

This is more difficult than the other queries. The query estimation will be inaccurate since the liquidity is never taken out before the other token in the pool is swapped for the request token denom. This is what we have so far: https://github.com/apollodao/osmosis/tree/dev/pool-shares-rpc-queries

I have a query for QueryExitPool and I'm debating if we even need the QueryExitSwapShareAmountIn now.

georgemc98 · 2022-10-11T13:09:03Z

@georgemc98 I want to clarify one thing about the second query. Currently it works by equally splitting shares among all tokens in pool and then returns respectful amount of tokens of specific denom. My question is: should it work like this or should it transform all shares just into one specific denom?

Could I push my QueryExitPool message into your branch?

pysel · 2022-10-12T05:15:44Z

@georgemc98 I want to clarify one thing about the second query. Currently it works by equally splitting shares among all tokens in pool and then returns respectful amount of tokens of specific denom. My question is: should it work like this or should it transform all shares just into one specific denom?

Could I push my QueryExitPool message into your branch?

Sure

pysel · 2022-10-12T05:16:10Z

@georgemc98 I want to clarify one thing about the second query. Currently it works by equally splitting shares among all tokens in pool and then returns respectful amount of tokens of specific denom. My question is: should it work like this or should it transform all shares just into one specific denom?

This is more difficult than the other queries. The query estimation will be inaccurate since the liquidity is never taken out before the other token in the pool is swapped for the request token denom. This is what we have so far: https://github.com/apollodao/osmosis/tree/dev/pool-shares-rpc-queries

I have a query for QueryExitPool and I'm debating if we even need the QueryExitSwapShareAmountIn now.

So what do you think, we leave it or remove it for good?

georgemc98 · 2022-10-13T15:35:15Z

@georgemc98 I want to clarify one thing about the second query. Currently it works by equally splitting shares among all tokens in pool and then returns respectful amount of tokens of specific denom. My question is: should it work like this or should it transform all shares just into one specific denom?

This is more difficult than the other queries. The query estimation will be inaccurate since the liquidity is never taken out before the other token in the pool is swapped for the request token denom. This is what we have so far: https://github.com/apollodao/osmosis/tree/dev/pool-shares-rpc-queries
I have a query for QueryExitPool and I'm debating if we even need the QueryExitSwapShareAmountIn now.

So what do you think, we leave it or remove it for good?

I recommend that we add two endpoints, JoinPool and ExitPool. JoinPool can take a single asset, or both assets. Check out my branch where I implement ExitPool and JoinPool. Your JoinSwapExactAmountIn query is identical to my JoinPool query. I think it would be better to name it JoinPool for simplicity's sake. I also recommend that QueryJoinPoolResponse returns both the shares and tokenIn, which is the coins accepted by the gamm module. I cannot push to your branch, so could you allow me access please?

pysel · 2022-10-14T05:16:49Z

@georgemc98 invited you as a collaborator, please accept

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:54:10Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

@@ -140,6 +140,65 @@ func (q Querier) PoolType(ctx context.Context, req *types.QueryPoolTypeRequest)
 	}, err
 }

+// JoinSwapExactAmountIn queries the amount of shares you get by providing specific amount of tokens
+func (q Querier) JoinSwapExactAmountIn(ctx context.Context, req *types.QueryJoinSwapExactAmountInRequest) (*types.QueryJoinSwapExactAmountInResponse, error) {


Can we call this CalcJoinPoolShares?

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:55:34Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+	}, nil
+}
+
+func (q Querier) ExitSwapShareAmountIn(ctx context.Context, req *types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInRequest) (*types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse, error) {


godoc please

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:56:28Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+
+	totalSharesAmount := pool.GetTotalShares()
+	if req.ShareInAmount.GTE(totalSharesAmount) || req.ShareInAmount.LTE(sdk.ZeroInt()) {
+		return &types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse{TokenOutAmount: 0}, sdkerrors.Wrapf(types.ErrInvalidMathApprox, "share ratio is zero or negative")


please return nil

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:56:34Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+
+	exitCoins, err := pool.CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares(sdkCtx, *req.ShareInAmount, exitFee)
+	if err != nil {
+		return &types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse{TokenOutAmount: 0}, err


p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:57:13Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+	sdkCtx := sdk.UnwrapSDKContext(ctx)
+	pool, err := q.Keeper.GetPoolAndPoke(sdkCtx, req.PoolId)
+	if err != nil {
+		return &types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse{TokenOutAmount: 0}, err


p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:58:43Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+			return &types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse{TokenOutAmount: coin.Amount.Uint64()}, nil
+		}
+	}
+	return &types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse{}, nil


Should we return error if denom is not found?

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:59:04Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go

+		TokenOutDenom: "foo",
+		ShareInAmount: &defaultShares,
+	})
+	suite.Require().NotNil(out)


please add table driven tests to cover all edge cases

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:59:15Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go

+	suite.Require().NotNil(out)
+	suite.Require().NoError(err)
+}
+func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestJoinSwapExactAmountIn() {


Suggested change

func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestJoinSwapExactAmountIn() {

func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestJoinSwapExactAmountIn() {

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:59:29Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go

+		TokensIn: sdk.NewCoins(sdk.NewCoin("foo", sdk.NewInt(500))),
+	})
+	suite.Require().NotNil(out)
+	suite.Require().NoError(err)


Table driven tests with edge cases please

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T05:59:58Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+	}, nil
+}
+
+func (q Querier) ExitSwapShareAmountIn(ctx context.Context, req *types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInRequest) (*types.QueryExitSwapShareAmountInResponse, error) {


Consider renaming to CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares

p0mvn · 2022-10-14T06:11:42Z

The discussed approach of having fewer queries that take more inputs makes sense. I would like to suggest considering naming queries w/o "Join/Exit" but with "Calc". We've been trying to use the former abstraction to imply mutations. Since queries are non-mutative, "Calc" abstraction is preferable

pysel · 2022-10-14T11:21:27Z

@georgemc98 I fixed some things right now but not finished. basically what is left is to finish with tests. If you decide to work on this issue please feel free to push to my branch (recall that I added you to collaborators) thank you!

georgemc98 · 2022-10-14T12:16:09Z

@georgemc98 I fixed some things right now but not finished. basically what is left is to finish with tests. If you decide to work on this issue please feel free to push to my branch (recall that I added you to collaborators) thank you!

I will add table driven tests for TestCalcJoinPoolShares today.

pysel · 2022-10-14T16:51:53Z

@georgemc98 I fixed some things right now but not finished. basically what is left is to finish with tests. If you decide to work on this issue please feel free to push to my branch (recall that I added you to collaborators) thank you!

I will add table driven tests for TestCalcJoinPoolShares today.

Thank you very much! I will finish TestCalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares as soon as I can

georgemc98 · 2022-10-14T16:57:42Z

@georgemc98 I fixed some things right now but not finished. basically what is left is to finish with tests. If you decide to work on this issue please feel free to push to my branch (recall that I added you to collaborators) thank you!

I will add table driven tests for TestCalcJoinPoolShares today.

Thank you very much! I will finish TestCalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares as soon as I can

Sounds good, I pushed my CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares test earlier

pysel · 2022-11-02T05:24:38Z

@p0mvn changes addressed:

now takes a []string with denoms and returns sdk.Coins

georgemc98 · 2022-11-02T15:16:55Z

@alexanderbez @p0mvn Should whitelisting of these queries be done in this PR or do we need to create a separate PR for that? Have you guys reviewed the determinism and whatever else is needed to whitelist it?

This looks good to me to whitelist. However, let's do a separate PR to get more eyes from the rest of the team.

Excellent. I made a new branch based off this branch and created the PR here: #3217. Please let me know if there is anything else i need to do to get them whitelisted.

p0mvn

Looks good to me after discussing the filtering

p0mvn · 2022-11-02T15:40:31Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+	}, nil
+}
+
+// CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries the amount of tokens you get by exiting specific amouint of shares


Suggested change

// CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries the amount of tokens you get by exiting specific amouint of shares

// CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries the number of tokens you get by exiting a specific amount of shares.

// Only returns the coins requested by `TokensOutDenoms`. If `TokensOutDenoms` is empty, nothing is returned

// despite potentially having exiting coins.

p0mvn · 2022-11-02T15:43:43Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+	}
+
+	coinsOut := sdk.NewCoins()
+	for _, req_denom := range req.TokensOutDenoms {


I'm slightly confused about the purpose of TokensOutDenoms for filtering. Is this a requirement for this query?

Why can't we let clients filter out the denoms that they want? I think that filtering out by this input here is likely to lead to erroneous use where clients provide only one TokensOutDenoms while there are more existing

Agreed, let me remove that parameter and remove this for loop.

I'm slightly confused about the purpose of TokensOutDenoms for filtering. Is this a requirement for this query?

Why can't we let clients filter out the denoms that they want? I think that filtering out by this input here is likely to lead to erroneous use where clients provide only one TokensOutDenoms while there are more existing

I've removed this parameter and fixed the typos that you also suggested.

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go

apollo-sturdy · 2022-11-02T16:15:29Z

@georgemc98 @p0mvn @rusakh
I noticed that in JoinPoolNoSwap it first does:

neededLpLiquidity, err := getMaximalNoSwapLPAmount(ctx, pool, shareOutAmount)

before passing this result to:

sharesOut, err = pool.JoinPoolNoSwap(ctx, neededLpLiquidity, pool.GetSwapFee(ctx))

which internally calls CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares which this new query also calls.

getMaximalNoSwapLPAmount seems to calculate the reverse of CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares, so in theory the use case of being able to use this query to get sharesOut and pass this value to JoinPoolNoSwap should work, but have we verified that there are no rounding issues or similar that would lead to issues?

For example, let's say I have some amounts of the assets in a pool, and use this new query QueryCalcJoinPoolSharesRequest to receive a share_out_amount and a tokens_out (should maybe be called tokens_used...?).
Now I call MsgJoinPool with arguments ShareOutAmount = share_out_amount returned from the query and TokenInMaxs = tokens_out returned from the query, will this work without erroring due to rounding differences between CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares and getMaximalNoSwapLPAmount?

apollo-sturdy · 2022-11-02T16:34:52Z

For example, let's say I have some amounts of the assets in a pool, and use this new query QueryCalcJoinPoolSharesRequest to receive a share_out_amount and a tokens_out (should maybe be called tokens_used...?). Now I call MsgJoinPool with arguments ShareOutAmount = share_out_amount returned from the query and TokenInMaxs = tokens_out returned from the query, will this work without erroring due to rounding differences between CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares and getMaximalNoSwapLPAmount?

To expand on this, the reason we would want to pass the exact amounts returned from the query to MsgJoinPool is so that we can be sure that exactly this amount of tokens is drawn from our account, so that we can then do a single sided join with the remaining amount. Of course it would be great if this functionality was supported out of the box, but @ValarDragon recommended that we implement it at the smart contract level (#2994 (comment)), so for that to work this query needs to be an exact simulation.

p0mvn · 2022-11-02T17:15:27Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+		return nil, err
+	}
+
+	numShares, newLiquidity, err := pool.CalcJoinPoolShares(sdkCtx, req.TokensIn, pool.GetSwapFee(sdkCtx))


@apollo-sturdy if you are planning to pass the result of this query to JoinPoolNoSwap, I suggest using CalcJoinPoolNoSwap method here instead.

We should also then rename this query to CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares.

The difference between CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares is that the latter calculates the number of shares that we get from the given tokens without performing a swap.

On the other hand, CalcJoinPoolShares first joins without a swap, and then single asset joins any remaining coins. As a result, it is important to use the right calc method here.

I'm unaware of how you are planning to use the query and only reviewing for soundness as it is, not the integrations. Please let me know if there are other planned uses that we haven't discussed.

Ah I see now looking closer at CalcJoinPoolShares. Well in that case we would need two queries. As per the original issue #2956 what we actually want is the ability to simulate each type of liquidity provision (MsgJoinPool and MsgJoinSwapExternAmountIn). These are the only use cases I'm aware of or can think of anyone wanting.

It looks like for MsgJoinSwapExternAmountIn it only really does CalcJoinPoolShares, so the current query that this PR introduces should work as an exact simulation of MsgJoinSwapExternAmountIn?

For MsgJoinPool as mentioned it seems to do more than just CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares. Would you be able to help with introducing an exact simulation query for this function?

For MsgJoinPool as mentioned it seems to do more than just CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares. Would you be able to help with introducing an exact simulation query for this function?

I think we should be able to do the following:

create a new query CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares similar to the one introduced in this PR

add this logic to get maximal no swap lp amounts

call pool's CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares

add table-driven unit tests

ideally, add a functional test that makes sure that this new query behaves exactly the same as JoinPoolNoSwap

I think this can be also tested contract side so is optional

@rusakh would you be interested in making a follow-up PR with this new query?

yes, I would like to work on it

Awesome. Please feel free to make a follow-up issue and start working on it

I think there is a problem in getMaximalNoSwapLPAmount

totalSharesAmount := pool.GetTotalShares() // shareRatio is the desired number of shares, divided by the total number of // shares currently in the pool. It is intended to be used in scenarios where you want shareRatio := shareOutAmount.ToDec().QuoInt(totalSharesAmount) if shareRatio.LTE(sdk.ZeroDec()) || shareRatio.GT(sdk.OneDec()) { return sdk.Coins{}, sdkerrors.Wrapf(types.ErrInvalidMathApprox, "share ratio is zero or negative") }

It only checks if share ratio is LTE 0, I think it should also check if it is bigger than one, because in case it is >= 1, you are trying to get more shares than there is available. Wdyt @p0mvn @apollo-sturdy ?

It only checks if share ratio is LTE 0, I think it should also check if it is bigger than one, because in case it is >= 1, you are trying to get more shares than there is available. Wdyt @p0mvn @apollo-sturdy ?

Why should you not be able to provide more liquidity than is already in the pool? The amount of "shares available" is infinite, since they are minted upon liquidity provision?

It only checks if share ratio is LTE 0, I think it should also check if it is bigger than one, because in case it is >= 1, you are trying to get more shares than there is available. Wdyt @p0mvn @apollo-sturdy ?

Why should you not be able to provide more liquidity than is already in the pool? The amount of "shares available" is infinite, since they are minted upon liquidity provision?

indeed, thank you for clarification

pysel · 2022-11-03T03:20:44Z

hello @p0mvn. Are you sure we need to update sdk version in go.mod in this PR?

p0mvn · 2022-11-03T03:58:05Z

hello @p0mvn. Are you sure we need to update sdk version in go.mod in this PR?

Yes, that should be fine. We use a replace directive for cosmos-sdk so the true version is determined by that. Thanks for checking though

p0mvn · 2022-11-03T04:03:46Z

I'm going to merge this. CalcJoinPoolNoSwapShares can be addressed in a follow-up PR

#2972) * JoinSwapExactAmountIn query * ExitSwapShareAmountIn query * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * save * test: finish CalcJoinPoolShares query test * tests for CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares * tests for CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares * test: add additional exit coin tests * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> * queries * docs fix * chore: generate protobuf files * feat: remove TokensOutDenoms, fix typos * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go Co-authored-by: Ruslan Akhtariev <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: George McAskill <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Roman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 94534da) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md

p0mvn · 2022-11-12T01:41:17Z

x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go

+	}
+
+	sdkCtx := sdk.UnwrapSDKContext(ctx)
+	pool, err := q.Keeper.getPoolForSwap(sdkCtx, req.PoolId)


For balancer pools, this method may call PokePool() which updates pool weights. Is this acceptable for a stargate query?

CC: @ValarDragon

Yeah this is fine, because:

this won't get saved

Even if it did, cosmwasm would revert the result

#2972) * JoinSwapExactAmountIn query * ExitSwapShareAmountIn query * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries * save * test: finish CalcJoinPoolShares query test * tests for CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares * tests for CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares * test: add additional exit coin tests * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> * queries * docs fix * chore: generate protobuf files * feat: remove TokensOutDenoms, fix typos * Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go Co-authored-by: Ruslan Akhtariev <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: George McAskill <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Roman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 94534da) # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query.go # x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go # x/gamm/types/query.pb.go

Ruslan Akhtariev added 8 commits October 10, 2022 13:40

JoinSwapExactAmountIn query

5408389

ExitSwapShareAmountIn query

05c9085

JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries

ccb22ed

JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries

1c1d967

JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries

61cca1e

JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries

6b2f1b9

JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries

de6441e

JoinSwapExactAmountIn, ExitSwapShareAmountIn queries

629733e

pysel requested a review from a team October 10, 2022 09:39

github-actions bot added the C:x/gamm Changes, features and bugs related to the gamm module. label Oct 10, 2022

Merge branch 'osmosis-labs:main' into issue2956

18d6466

daniel-farina requested a review from p0mvn October 13, 2022 18:05

p0mvn reviewed Oct 14, 2022

View reviewed changes

save

a74afda

test: finish CalcJoinPoolShares query test

5f1d503

pysel and others added 3 commits October 15, 2022 13:11

Merge branch 'osmosis-labs:main' into issue2956

fe84dd6

tests for CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares

1765435

tests for CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares

d8473b5

pysel and others added 3 commits November 2, 2022 09:29

Merge branch 'osmosis-labs:main' into issue2956

1520c06

queries

aae9f0b

docs fix

34d4d4e

pysel requested review from p0mvn and removed request for alexanderbez November 2, 2022 05:24

georgemc98 mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2022

Add CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares pool queries to Stargate whitelist #3217

Merged

chore: generate protobuf files

6a62aae

p0mvn reviewed Nov 2, 2022

View reviewed changes

georgemc98 and others added 2 commits November 2, 2022 15:18

feat: remove TokensOutDenoms, fix typos

29f22b7

Update x/gamm/keeper/grpc_query_test.go

e2cc6bc

p0mvn approved these changes Nov 2, 2022

View reviewed changes

p0mvn added V:state/compatible/backport State machine compatible PR, should be backported A:backport/v12.x backport patches to v12.x branch and removed V:state/breaking State machine breaking PR labels Nov 3, 2022

p0mvn merged commit 94534da into osmosis-labs:main Nov 3, 2022

mergify bot mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2022

feat(gamm): CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries (backport #2972) #3226

Closed

pysel mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2022

JoinPoolNoSwap simulation #3242

Merged

p0mvn reviewed Nov 12, 2022

View reviewed changes

mattverse added the A:backport/v13.x backport patches to v13.x branch label Nov 14, 2022

mergify bot mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2022

feat(gamm): CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries (backport #2972) #3372

Closed

	func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestJoinSwapExactAmountIn() {

	func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestJoinSwapExactAmountIn() {

-// CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries the amount of tokens you get by exiting specific amouint of shares
+// CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries the number of tokens you get by exiting a specific amount of shares.
+// Only returns the coins requested by `TokensOutDenoms`. If `TokensOutDenoms` is empty, nothing is returned
+// despite potentially having exiting coins.

feat(gamm): CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries #2972

feat(gamm): CalcJoinPoolShares and CalcExitPoolCoinsFromShares queries #2972

Conversation

pysel commented Oct 10, 2022

What is the purpose of the change

Testing and Verifying

Documentation and Release Note

pysel commented Oct 10, 2022

georgemc98 commented Oct 10, 2022 • edited Loading

georgemc98 commented Oct 11, 2022

pysel commented Oct 12, 2022

pysel commented Oct 12, 2022

georgemc98 commented Oct 13, 2022 • edited Loading

pysel commented Oct 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

p0mvn commented Oct 14, 2022

pysel commented Oct 14, 2022

georgemc98 commented Oct 14, 2022

pysel commented Oct 14, 2022

georgemc98 commented Oct 14, 2022

pysel commented Nov 2, 2022

georgemc98 commented Nov 2, 2022

p0mvn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apollo-sturdy commented Nov 2, 2022

apollo-sturdy commented Nov 2, 2022

p0mvn Nov 2, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pysel Nov 4, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pysel Nov 4, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

apollo-sturdy Nov 4, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pysel commented Nov 3, 2022

p0mvn commented Nov 3, 2022

p0mvn commented Nov 3, 2022

p0mvn Nov 12, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

georgemc98 commented Oct 10, 2022 •

edited

Loading

georgemc98 commented Oct 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

p0mvn Nov 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

pysel Nov 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

pysel Nov 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

apollo-sturdy Nov 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

p0mvn Nov 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading