Disable create pool with non exit fee #4767
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
C:app-wiring
hieuvubk
added
the
V:state/compatible/backport
p0mvn
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Thanks.
Would like to request 2 items prior to merge:
- Changelog entry
- Comment in the proto file for
Pools
// N.B.: exit fee is disabled during pool creation in x/poolmanager. While old pools
// can maintain a non-zero fee. No new pool can be created with non-zero fee anymore
x/poolmanager/create_pool_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -155,6 +166,13 @@ func (suite *KeeperTestSuite) TestCreatePool() { | |||
| msg: validConcentratedPoolMsg, | |||
| expectedModuleType: concentratedKeeperType, | |||
| }, | |||
| { | |||
| name: "pool with non zero exit fee - success", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| name: "pool with non zero exit fee - success", | |
| name: "pool with non zero exit fee - error", |
czarcas7ic
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2023
x/gamm/keeper/pool_service_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ import ( | |||
|
|
|||
| var ( | |||
| defaultSwapFee = sdk.MustNewDecFromStr("0.025") | |||
| defaultExitFee = sdk.MustNewDecFromStr("0.025") | |||
| defaultExitFee = sdk.ZeroDec() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can we just define a defaultZeroExitFee in the keeper_test file as a global var and use it everywhere?
x/gamm/keeper/pool_service_test.go
Outdated
Comment on lines
96
to
103
| name: "create a pool with non zero exit fee", | ||
| msg: balancer.NewMsgCreateBalancerPool(testAccount, balancer.PoolParams{ | ||
| SwapFee: sdk.NewDecWithPrec(1, 2), | ||
| ExitFee: sdk.NewDecWithPrec(-1, 2), | ||
| ExitFee: sdk.NewDecWithPrec(1, 2), | ||
| }, defaultPoolAssets, defaultFutureGovernor), | ||
| emptySender: false, | ||
| expectPass: false, | ||
| }, { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
imo we should test both a negative and a non zero exit fee
|
All cmts were addressed, thank u so much |
This was referenced Mar 31, 2023
Closed
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes: #4371
What is the purpose of the change
After discussing with @p0mvn, we decided to keep the current proto struct, and just not allow the creation of pools with non zero exit fees in the future.
Brief Changelog
Testing and Verifying
(Please pick one of the following options)
This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.
(or)
This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).
(or)
This change added tests and can be verified as follows:
(example:)
Documentation and Release Note
Unreleasedsection inCHANGELOG.md? (yes / no)x/<module>/spec/) / Osmosis docs repo / not documented)