-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
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
AUTO-10716: fix a funding bug in LinkAvailableBalanceMonitor #13364
Merged
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b762237
AUTO-10716: fix a funding bug in LinkAvailableBalanceMonitor
FelixFan1992 68d5062
update
FelixFan1992 360551d
format
FelixFan1992 03f4db9
update
FelixFan1992 103b808
format
FelixFan1992 7afb77f
remove deps
FelixFan1992 ae32936
update
FelixFan1992 ca4afc4
update tests
FelixFan1992 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | ||
--- | ||
"chainlink": patch | ||
--- | ||
|
||
#bugfix | ||
fix a funding bug in LinkAvailableBalanceMonitor |
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | ||
--- | ||
"@chainlink/contracts": patch | ||
--- | ||
|
||
#bugfix | ||
fix a funding bug in LinkAvailableBalanceMonitor |
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
@RyanRHall what do you think of this?
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 super confusing and unnecessarily complicated lol. From what I can tell, the
lastTopUpTimestamp
is always updated on line 269, and then on line 283 and 287 we set the time stamp back to what it was (meaning net no change) - is that how you interpret this code too?I think we should take a second and think about what makes most sense from a product perspective. The min wait period is supposed to act as a rate limiter. And I think the question we're asking here is "should the rate limit apply to failed transfers?". So imagine a transfer fails for some reason, do we want the system to retry immediately or only retry after some wait period? I would think the latter, but we might want to double check with finance team.