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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
[BLOCKED] Save executed fee in surplus token #3184
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[BLOCKED] Save executed fee in surplus token #3184
Changes from all commits
6371811
c256f56
07c0ea6
8a87c3f
0deac2b
4ef3c3b
8ddb90b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Safer would be to use
checked_add()
.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.
Maybe use
FeeFactor
here instead off64
so we can ensure on type-level thatfactor
cannot have value of 1 (so there will be no division by 0).Same for
volume_fee()
.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 by reading the struct and comments it's not really clear to me what this field is.
It sounds like this is just the sum of all protocol fees but I think since we need to account for the gas in the breakdown this is all protocol fees + gas fees.
In that case I think it would be nicer to have a field like
gas_costs
and a public member functiontotal_fees()
. WDYT?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.
This is how I implemented it initially, but I had to revert those changes. I commented here on the reasons why.
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.
The order of items also indicates the order in which the fee policies got applied, right?
Seems important enough to point out in a comment.
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.
It would be helpful to include details from your comment somewhere here.