Skip to content
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

Fee collection in amm #1121

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 24, 2025
Merged

Fee collection in amm #1121

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 24, 2025

Conversation

amityadav0
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Closes:

What has Changed?

What specific problem were you aiming to address, and how did you successfully resolve it? If tests were not uploaded for this pull request or if coverage decreased, please provide an explanation for the change.


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

Deployment Notes

Are there any specific considerations to take into account when deploying these changes? This may include new dependencies, scripts that need to be executed, or any aspects that can only be evaluated in a deployed environment.

Screenshots and Videos

Please provide any relevant before and after screenshots by uploading them here. Additionally, demo videos can be highly beneficial in demonstrating the process.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 24, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 11.76471% with 45 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 47.98%. Comparing base (8b13fc3) to head (51f2f32).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1121      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   48.03%   47.98%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         895      895              
  Lines       35074    35124      +50     
==========================================
+ Hits        16849    16854       +5     
- Misses      16966    17009      +43     
- Partials     1259     1261       +2     
Components Coverage Δ
leveragelp_transactions 75.07% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_lifecycle 82.72% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_keeper 85.41% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_queries 19.94% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_transactions 100.00% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
accountedpool_queries 81.25% <ø> (ø)
amm_transactions 80.34% <ø> (ø)
amm_lifecycle 90.66% <ø> (ø)
amm_keeper 73.59% <ø> (ø)
amm_queries 82.45% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_transactions 76.85% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
assetprofile_keeper 80.00% <ø> (ø)
assetprofile_queries 60.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_transactions 0.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
burner_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
burner_queries 79.06% <ø> (ø)
commitment_transactions 74.63% <ø> (ø)
commitment_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_keeper 86.17% <ø> (ø)
commitment_queries 59.04% <ø> (ø)
epochs_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
epochs_lifecycle 92.00% <ø> (ø)
epochs_keeper 84.61% <ø> (ø)
epochs_queries 83.33% <ø> (ø)
estaking_transactions 68.93% <ø> (ø)
estaking_lifecycle 82.60% <ø> (ø)
estaking_keeper 72.80% <ø> (ø)
estaking_queries 62.35% <ø> (ø)
incentive_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_keeper ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_queries ∅ <ø> (∅)
masterchef_transactions 86.85% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_lifecycle 75.80% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_queries 38.74% <ø> (ø)
oracle_transactions 27.27% <ø> (ø)
oracle_lifecycle 30.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_keeper 61.11% <ø> (ø)
oracle_queries 34.53% <ø> (ø)
parameter_transactions 18.86% <ø> (ø)
parameter_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
parameter_keeper 75.00% <ø> (ø)
parameter_queries 57.14% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_transactions 81.53% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_lifecycle 100.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_keeper 90.47% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_queries 100.00% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_transactions 76.10% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_lifecycle 90.90% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_keeper 61.68% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_queries 64.86% <ø> (ø)
tier_transactions 100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_lifecycle 100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_keeper 90.90% <ø> (ø)
tier_queries 79.92% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_transactions 71.87% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
tokenomics_keeper 80.00% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_queries 79.06% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_queries 57.14% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_transactions 74.29% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
tradeshield_keeper 90.90% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_queries 67.56% <ø> (ø)

@amityadav0 amityadav0 requested a review from avkr003 January 24, 2025 06:22
@avkr003 avkr003 enabled auto-merge (squash) January 24, 2025 15:41
@avkr003 avkr003 merged commit 0a4e15e into main Jan 24, 2025
73 of 75 checks passed
@avkr003 avkr003 deleted the fee-col branch January 24, 2025 15:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants