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

GTM logic refactored #572

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Mar 5, 2019
Merged

GTM logic refactored #572

merged 13 commits into from
Mar 5, 2019

Conversation

maxsam4
Copy link
Contributor

@maxsam4 maxsam4 commented Feb 26, 2019

GTM logic has been simplified and made more flexible.
Some work will be required by the dApp team to incorporate the changes.

@maxsam4 maxsam4 changed the title GTM logic refactored [WIP] GTM logic refactored Feb 26, 2019
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 28, 2019

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 95.982% when pulling 94139b8 on gtm-logic-refactor into b205061 on dev-3.0.0.

@maxsam4 maxsam4 changed the title [WIP] GTM logic refactored GTM logic refactored Feb 28, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@satyamakgec satyamakgec left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The approach is good on the contract side but it will little bit harden the dApp work. dApp team needs to create some scenarios (combination of true or false) when issuer wants to change in the transfers flag.
And redemption/ allowAllWhitelistTransfers will little bit costlier.

@maxsam4
Copy link
Contributor Author

maxsam4 commented Mar 1, 2019

@satyamakgec allowAllWhitelistTransfers will actually be cheaper. Ones less SLOAD is required in the new logic.

Only allowAllTransfers and allowAllBurnTransfers will be slightly more expensive but I don't think anyone will use them in practice.

@maxsam4 maxsam4 merged commit cd83ece into dev-3.0.0 Mar 5, 2019
@maxsam4 maxsam4 deleted the gtm-logic-refactor branch March 5, 2019 04:27
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.

4 participants