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

Add simple swap #1

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 3, 2019
Merged

Add simple swap #1

merged 6 commits into from
Nov 3, 2019

Conversation

warner
Copy link
Member

@warner warner commented Nov 2, 2019

This changes the template to use @katelynsills 's simpleSwap instead of automaticRefund. It only changes the contract/ directory, however: I don't know what changes are needed to api/ or ui/ to make the simple swap usable.. someone else should look at that before we land this.

@warner warner requested a review from jfparadis November 2, 2019 19:55
@katelynsills katelynsills merged commit 18a8fc6 into master Nov 3, 2019
@katelynsills katelynsills deleted the add-simple-swap branch November 3, 2019 01:00
warner pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2019
evaluate: accept options argument
warner pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2019
…s-1.4.2

Bump eslint-utils from 1.4.0 to 1.4.2
warner pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2019
Mark code in README as js, for syntax highlighting
dckc referenced this pull request in dckc/agoric-sdk Dec 5, 2019
sscli: use --net=host on linux
dckc referenced this pull request in dckc/agoric-sdk Dec 5, 2019
init. Taken from SwingSet
dckc referenced this pull request in dckc/agoric-sdk Dec 5, 2019
dckc referenced this pull request in dckc/agoric-sdk Dec 5, 2019
…-test/js-yaml-3.13.1

Bump js-yaml from 3.13.0 to 3.13.1 in /integration-test
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 22, 2021
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 19, 2022
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2022
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 21, 2022
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
michaelfig pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2022
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
michaelfig pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2022
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2022
Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2022
 - factor out registerNetworkProtocols
 - factor out makeChainBundler
   - add vatParameters arg
   - import types for vats
     - avoid casting result of buildZoe
   - turn bootMsg example comment into machine-checked type
 - default attMakerFor to non-bridge case rather than undefined
 - fix array arg to buildDistributor
 - factor out createLocalBundle
   - add vatPowers arg
 - refactor: unroll setupCommandDevice
 - feat: don't await vatAdminSvc
   I can't imagine any need for it to be local.
 - docs: prune refs to python provisioning service
   Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
 - docs: declare type of makeFeeCollector
   move function comment into JSDoc
dckc added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2022
 - factor out registerNetworkProtocols
 - factor out makeChainBundler
   - add vatParameters arg
   - import types for vats
     - avoid casting result of buildZoe
   - turn bootMsg example comment into machine-checked type
 - default attMakerFor to non-bridge case rather than undefined
 - fix array arg to buildDistributor
 - factor out createLocalBundle
   - add vatPowers arg
 - refactor: unroll setupCommandDevice
 - feat: don't await vatAdminSvc
   I can't imagine any need for it to be local.
 - docs: prune refs to python provisioning service
   Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
 - docs: declare type of makeFeeCollector
   move function comment into JSDoc
michaelfig pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2022
 - factor out registerNetworkProtocols
 - factor out makeChainBundler
   - add vatParameters arg
   - import types for vats
     - avoid casting result of buildZoe
   - turn bootMsg example comment into machine-checked type
 - default attMakerFor to non-bridge case rather than undefined
 - fix array arg to buildDistributor
 - factor out createLocalBundle
   - add vatPowers arg
 - refactor: unroll setupCommandDevice
 - feat: don't await vatAdminSvc
   I can't imagine any need for it to be local.
 - docs: prune refs to python provisioning service
   Is there anything left that's worth saying about "scenario #1"?
 - docs: declare type of makeFeeCollector
   move function comment into JSDoc
Chris-Hibbert added a commit that referenced this pull request May 18, 2023
fixes: #7784

I over-corrected with my last fix, generalizing a fix that applied to
flow #1 to apply also to flow 2b, which it did not. The output here
now matches the scenarios the PMs have been testing.
Chris-Hibbert added a commit that referenced this pull request May 18, 2023
fixes: #7784

I over-corrected with my last fix, generalizing a fix that applied to
flow #1 to apply also to flow 2b, which it did not. The output here
now matches the scenarios the PMs have been testing.
@turadg turadg mentioned this pull request Jun 23, 2023
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