-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 607
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ensure gauges can only be created for assets that exist on-chain #855
Conversation
Awesome! Can you fix the tests for this as well? @AlpinYukseloglu |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #855 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 20.00% 20.61% +0.61%
==========================================
Files 189 191 +2
Lines 24549 25792 +1243
==========================================
+ Hits 4910 5318 +408
- Misses 18783 19567 +784
- Partials 856 907 +51 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Should be good to go! |
@@ -39,8 +39,10 @@ enum LockQueryType { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
message QueryCondition { | |||
LockQueryType lock_query_type = 1; // type of lock query, ByLockDuration | ByLockTime | |||
string denom = 2; // What token denomination are we looking for lockups of | |||
// type of lock query, ByLockDuration | ByLockTime |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice change, as we found out these don't get into the go docs. Can you also make an issue in this repo to update all of our proto files for this? (Moving comments above the line they affect, rather than in the same line, to the side?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Created one here: #863
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
@mattverse can you review & merge as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just the general question on the tests, otherwise looks LGTM!
mintLPtokens := sdk.Coins{sdk.NewInt64Coin(distrTo.Denom, 200)} | ||
err = simapp.FundAccount(suite.app.BankKeeper, suite.ctx, gaugeCreator, mintLPtokens) | ||
suite.Require().NoError(err) | ||
|
||
gaugeId, err := suite.app.IncentivesKeeper.CreateGauge(suite.ctx, true, gaugeCreator, coins, distrTo, time.Now(), 1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we minting / funding account here? I understand why it should be happening in setupGaugeForLPIncentives
but I dont understand why we're minting LP Tokens here(Don't have opinions btw, really just curous)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
mintLPtokens := sdk.Coins{sdk.NewInt64Coin(distrTo.Denom, 200)} | ||
err = simapp.FundAccount(app.BankKeeper, ctx, addr, mintLPtokens) | ||
require.NoError(t, err) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we minting / funding account here? I understand why it should be happening in setupGaugeForLPIncentives but I dont understand why we're minting LP Tokens here(Don't have opinions btw, really just curious)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think maybe the denom lptoken
might be a bit misleading - I didn't pick apart what the entire test is doing and whether or not it is necessary for it to create a gauge that distributes to the denom lptoken
, but since it does, we have to make sure the denom has supply on-chain since otherwise, CreateGauge
fails due to the new check we've added. It shouldn't affect the test's direct functionality - it just makes sure that the test is compliant with the new constraint that we've added to CreateGauge
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah I see, makes sense!
Closes: #530
Description
Adds a check in the gauge creation process that prevents gauges from being created for denoms that do not exist on-chain.
For contributor use:
docs/
) or specification (x/<module>/spec/
)Unreleased
section inCHANGELOG.md
Files changed
in the Github PR explorer