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

feat: splitting nep-141 logic (silo) #748

Closed
wants to merge 125 commits into from

Conversation

aleksuss
Copy link
Member

Description

This PR is a clone of #607

Performance / NEAR gas cost considerations

Testing

How should this be reviewed

Additional information

@aleksuss aleksuss force-pushed the feat/aleksuss/silo-slitting-nep141 branch from 9c5a0e5 to 49e2ccf Compare April 28, 2023 10:17
@vimpunk
Copy link
Contributor

vimpunk commented Apr 28, 2023

Why was this cloned from #607?

@aleksuss
Copy link
Member Author

Because we want to apply changes related to splitting NEP-141 to Aurora EVM with SILO logic first.

@aleksuss aleksuss changed the title feat: slitting nep-141 logic (silo) feat: splitting nep-141 logic (silo) Apr 28, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@vimpunk vimpunk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Halfway through. Will review later just wanted to post these so you can start addressing them.

Those, the public interface of the Engine contract has not changed. However, these functions now work differently. Inside them, there is a cross-contract call of the functions of another contract - aurora-eth-connector

One question: the linked PR says there are no gas cost changes. Aren't xcc's more expensive? Or it's not significant? I guess in most cases users would interact directly with the nep-141 contract instead of calling it through the engine as a proxy, so I suppose for practical purposes there are no gas cost changes, correct?

engine-types/src/types/balance.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
engine-tests/src/tests/uniswap.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
engine-tests-connector/src/utils.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@aleksuss
Copy link
Member Author

The gas costs are affected by previous changes from the develop branch. And yes. This is an interim stage. The eth-connector's methods are present in the Aurora EVM for backward compatibility. It will be removed In the future Avrora EVM version.

@aleksuss aleksuss force-pushed the feat/aleksuss/silo-slitting-nep141 branch from e56c73b to 0dba29e Compare May 9, 2023 09:06
@joshuajbouw joshuajbouw added the S-do-not-merge Status: Do not merge label Jul 18, 2023
@joshuajbouw
Copy link
Contributor

Adding the status do not merge, as it'll be good to go for the release following the upcoming one.

# Conflicts:
#	.github/workflows/tests.yml
#	Cargo.lock
#	Cargo.toml
#	Makefile.toml
#	engine-standalone-nep141-legacy/src/fungible_token.rs
#	engine-standalone-storage/Cargo.toml
#	engine-standalone-storage/src/sync/mod.rs
#	engine-tests/Cargo.toml
#	engine-tests/src/tests/erc20_connector.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/eth_connector.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/mod.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/repro.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/sanity.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/state_migration.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/uniswap.rs
#	engine-tests/src/tests/xcc.rs
#	engine-tests/src/utils/mod.rs
#	engine-tests/src/utils/standalone/mocks/mod.rs
#	engine-types/src/parameters/mod.rs
#	engine/src/connector.rs
#	engine/src/lib.rs
#	engine/src/parameters.rs
…ing-nep141

# Conflicts:
#	Cargo.lock
#	engine-standalone-storage/src/sync/mod.rs
#	engine-tests/src/utils/mod.rs
#	engine-workspace/src/contract.rs
#	engine-workspace/src/operation.rs
#	engine/src/lib.rs
@aleksuss aleksuss force-pushed the feat/aleksuss/silo-slitting-nep141 branch from 0dba29e to 72e04ba Compare August 2, 2023 16:05
@aleksuss
Copy link
Member Author

aleksuss commented Aug 3, 2023

Closed in flavour #813

@aleksuss aleksuss closed this Aug 3, 2023
@aleksuss aleksuss deleted the feat/aleksuss/silo-slitting-nep141 branch October 16, 2023 10:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-do-not-merge Status: Do not merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants