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

[Amm]: Add a New Field for Slippage and Weight Breaking Fee on Trades #1035

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Dec 6, 2024

Conversation

amityadav0
Copy link
Contributor

Description

  • Add a New Field for Slippage and Weight Breaking Fee on Trades

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.

@amityadav0 amityadav0 marked this pull request as draft December 6, 2024 05:44
@amityadav0 amityadav0 marked this pull request as ready for review December 6, 2024 06:35
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 6, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.01149% with 20 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 44.12%. Comparing base (d2d7830) to head (9797392).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1035      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   44.05%   44.12%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         934      935       +1     
  Lines       35474    35559      +85     
==========================================
+ Hits        15628    15691      +63     
- Misses      18544    18563      +19     
- Partials     1302     1305       +3     
Components Coverage Δ
leveragelp_transactions 80.06% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_lifecycle 82.72% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_keeper 85.41% <ø> (ø)
leveragelp_queries 8.94% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_transactions 100.00% <ø> (ø)
accountedpool_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
accountedpool_queries 65.04% <ø> (ø)
amm_transactions 73.33% <ø> (ø)
amm_lifecycle 90.66% <ø> (ø)
amm_keeper 58.45% <100.00%> (+0.44%) ⬆️
amm_queries 44.75% <100.00%> (+0.44%) ⬆️
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 62.01% <ø> (ø)
commitment_transactions 78.29% <ø> (ø)
commitment_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
commitment_keeper 86.17% <ø> (ø)
commitment_queries 32.46% <ø> (ø)
epochs_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
epochs_lifecycle 92.00% <ø> (ø)
epochs_keeper 84.61% <ø> (ø)
epochs_queries 26.78% <ø> (ø)
estaking_transactions 68.93% <ø> (ø)
estaking_lifecycle 82.60% <ø> (ø)
estaking_keeper 72.64% <ø> (ø)
estaking_queries 32.71% <ø> (ø)
incentive_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_keeper ∅ <ø> (∅)
incentive_queries ∅ <ø> (∅)
masterchef_transactions 86.85% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_lifecycle 74.87% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
masterchef_queries 26.73% <62.50%> (+0.34%) ⬆️
oracle_transactions 27.27% <ø> (ø)
oracle_lifecycle 30.00% <ø> (ø)
oracle_keeper 61.11% <ø> (ø)
oracle_queries 12.73% <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 83.20% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_lifecycle 100.00% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_keeper 90.47% <ø> (ø)
stablestake_queries 100.00% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_transactions 82.43% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_lifecycle 90.90% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_keeper 62.38% <ø> (ø)
perpetual_queries 61.32% <ø> (ø)
tier_transactions 25.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_lifecycle 100.00% <ø> (ø)
tier_keeper 90.90% <ø> (ø)
tier_queries 4.84% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_transactions 71.87% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
tokenomics_keeper 80.00% <ø> (ø)
tokenomics_queries 69.60% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_transactions ∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
transferhook_keeper 100.00% <ø> (ø)
transferhook_queries 11.11% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_transactions 75.54% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_lifecycle ∅ <ø> (∅)
tradeshield_keeper 90.90% <ø> (ø)
tradeshield_queries 21.55% <ø> (ø)

@cosmic-vagabond cosmic-vagabond merged commit a9e8d90 into main Dec 6, 2024
73 of 74 checks passed
@cosmic-vagabond cosmic-vagabond deleted the weight-track branch December 6, 2024 11:27
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