Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
docs: payee registration and fee distribution for relayer operators #1577
docs: payee registration and fee distribution for relayer operators #1577
Changes from 5 commits
aa6af5d
2999f54
474a4e6
13908cb
de000c6
7d9b443
49251ce
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seeing as we're saying the
sum of all packet receive fees
it might be worth noting above that a packet fee can be 'topped up' multiple times. wdyt?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe that could be added to the section Escrowing and paying out fees of @charleenfei's PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, possibly adding to @charleenfei's PR would be a nice idea and segway into linking to this docs page.
#1572 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea, though the fact that the fees are stored as separate structs is an implementation detail imo. I think it makes sense to say that
RecvFee
here is the fee that will be distributed to the payee for a successful execution of RecvPacketAnd in the
escrowing section
we can document that therecvFee
along with other fees can be topped up multiple times. wdyt?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
destination