Asset transfer

[alistair-singh]

Resolves: SNO-569
Cumulus companion: Snowfork/cumulus#52

TODO

• Register token
• Send token Eth -> Substrate
• Send token back Substrate -> Eth

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 62.50% and project coverage change: -0.22% ⚠️

Comparison is base (996469a) 68.43% compared to head (ac710bd) 68.21%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on proxy-contracts.

❗ Current head ac710bd differs from pull request most recent head 28482ad. Consider uploading reports for the commit 28482ad to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           proxy-contracts     #904      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            68.43%   68.21%   -0.22%     
===================================================
  Files                   42       42              
  Lines                 1774     1787      +13     
  Branches                72       72              
===================================================
+ Hits                  1214     1219       +5     
- Misses                 541      549       +8     
  Partials                19       19              

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	67.05% <52.00%> (-0.22%)	⬇️
solidity	73.15% <100.00%> (-0.16%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
parachain/primitives/core/src/lib.rs	16.92% <0.00%> (-1.42%)	⬇️
parachain/primitives/router/src/inbound/mod.rs	48.59% <ø> (ø)
parachain/primitives/router/src/outbound/mod.rs	87.96% <60.00%> (-1.80%)	⬇️
core/packages/contracts/src/AgentExecutor.sol	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
core/packages/contracts/src/Assets.sol	67.85% <100.00%> (ø)
core/packages/contracts/src/Gateway.sol	74.30% <100.00%> (-0.36%)	⬇️
parachain/pallets/control/src/lib.rs	60.00% <100.00%> (+5.16%)	⬆️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[vgeddes]

Looks good! Added a few minor comments

[vgeddes]

Looks good!

[vgeddes]

The Solidity side isn't expecting a tuple (struct) type though.

i.e abi.decode(data, (address, address, uint128)) is equivalent to:

ethabi::encode(&vec![Token::Address(*token), Token::Address(*recipient), Token::Uint(U256::from(*amount))]);

[alistair-singh]

I think implicitly it's encoded to the same thing because (address, address, uint128) is an implicit tuple. I have tested both versions and they work. The tuple and just a vec![Tokens]. I used the tuple version because it feels more correct. So I think this is more of style thing so which would you prefer?

[vgeddes]

I prefer the original form.

We can't say for sure whether they encode to the same thing for all input parameter types, without more investigation and testing. Also Token::Tuple was introduced purely to encode structs, and we're not using structs in this case.