feat(amm)!: push reserved assets to reserve contract #5429

turadg · 2022-05-25T14:42:59Z

closes: #5408
closes: #5271

Description

When the AMM makes a pool, add the collateral to the reserve.

This requires that the reserve has the issuer, so when an issuer is added to AMM, also add it to the reserve. Put this on the public facet so the AMM doesn't need special access, but use a special method so the the reserve validates it back against the AMM.

Security Considerations

New method on AMM creator facet to set the reserve instance

Documentation Considerations

Requires AMM to have resolveReserveFacet called before pools are created.

Testing Considerations

New tests. Updated bootstrap. Made some test config more consistent.

after: ``` gov-collateral › assets are in AMM, Vaults ℹ && task was past its deadline when scheduled: 0 && ℹ @@ schedule task for:86400, currently: 0 @@ ℹ && task was past its deadline when scheduled: 0 && ℹ @@ schedule task for:3600, currently: 0 @@ ℹ addAsset { denom: 'ibc/abc123', issuer: '[object Alleged: ibc/abc123 issuer]', keyword: 'ibc/abc123', } Rejected promise returned by test. Reason: Error { message: 'Must first setReserveDepositFacet', } ``` before: ``` gov-collateral › assets are in AMM, Vaults ℹ chainTimerService: new Promise ℹ zoe: new Promise ℹ feeMintAccess: new Promise ℹ agoricNames: new Promise ℹ agoricNamesAdmin: new Promise ℹ chainTimerService settled; remaining: [ 'agoricNames', 'agoricNamesAdmin', 'feeMintAccess', 'zoe', ] ℹ zoe settled; remaining: [ 'agoricNames', 'agoricNamesAdmin', 'feeMintAccess', ] ℹ feeMintAccess settled; remaining: [ 'agoricNames', 'agoricNamesAdmin', ] ℹ agoricNames settled; remaining: [ 'agoricNamesAdmin', ] ℹ agoricNamesAdmin settled; remaining: [] ℹ loadVat: new Promise ℹ restoreBundleID: new Promise ℹ board: new Promise ℹ loadVat settled; remaining: [ 'board', 'restoreBundleID', ] ℹ restoreBundleID settled; remaining: [ 'board', ] ℹ bridgeManager: new Promise ℹ bankManager: new Promise ℹ initialSupply: new Promise ℹ bldIssuerKit: new Promise ℹ client: new Promise ℹ clientCreator: new Promise ℹ coreEvalBridgeHandler: new Promise ℹ bridgeManager settled; remaining: [ 'bankManager', 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'client', 'clientCreator', 'coreEvalBridgeHandler', 'initialSupply', ] ℹ bankManager settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'client', 'clientCreator', 'coreEvalBridgeHandler', 'initialSupply', ] ℹ clientCreator settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'client', 'coreEvalBridgeHandler', 'initialSupply', ] ℹ client settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'coreEvalBridgeHandler', 'initialSupply', ] ℹ namesByAddress: new Promise ℹ namesByAddressAdmin: new Promise ℹ coreEvalBridgeHandler settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'initialSupply', 'namesByAddress', 'namesByAddressAdmin', ] ℹ namesByAddress settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'initialSupply', 'namesByAddressAdmin', ] ℹ namesByAddressAdmin settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', 'initialSupply', ] ℹ initialSupply settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', 'board', ] ℹ board settled; remaining: [ 'bldIssuerKit', ] ℹ bldIssuerKit settled; remaining: [] ℹ priceAuthorityVat: new Promise ℹ priceAuthority: new Promise ℹ priceAuthorityAdmin: new Promise ℹ priceAuthority settled; remaining: [ 'priceAuthorityAdmin', 'priceAuthorityVat', ] ℹ priceAuthorityAdmin settled; remaining: [ 'priceAuthorityVat', ] ℹ priceAuthorityVat settled; remaining: [] ℹ vaultFactoryCreator: new Promise ℹ economicCommitteeCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ ammCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ ammGovernorCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ reserveCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ reserveGovernorCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ reservePublicFacet: new Promise ℹ lienBridge: new Promise ℹ runStakeCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ runStakeGovernorCreatorFacet: new Promise ℹ vaultFactoryGovernorCreator: new Promise ℹ vaultFactoryVoteCreator: new Promise ℹ economicCommitteeCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'ammCreatorFacet', 'ammGovernorCreatorFacet', 'lienBridge', 'reserveCreatorFacet', 'reserveGovernorCreatorFacet', 'reservePublicFacet', 'runStakeCreatorFacet', 'runStakeGovernorCreatorFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ && task was past its deadline when scheduled: 0 && ℹ @@ schedule task for:86400, currently: 0 @@ ℹ runStakeGovernorCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'ammCreatorFacet', 'ammGovernorCreatorFacet', 'lienBridge', 'reserveCreatorFacet', 'reserveGovernorCreatorFacet', 'reservePublicFacet', 'runStakeCreatorFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ runStakeCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'ammCreatorFacet', 'ammGovernorCreatorFacet', 'lienBridge', 'reserveCreatorFacet', 'reserveGovernorCreatorFacet', 'reservePublicFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ ammGovernorCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'ammCreatorFacet', 'lienBridge', 'reserveCreatorFacet', 'reserveGovernorCreatorFacet', 'reservePublicFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ ammCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', 'reserveCreatorFacet', 'reserveGovernorCreatorFacet', 'reservePublicFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ reserveGovernorCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', 'reserveCreatorFacet', 'reservePublicFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ reserveCreatorFacet settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', 'reservePublicFacet', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ reservePublicFacet settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', 'vaultFactoryCreator', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ vaultFactoryCreator settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', 'vaultFactoryGovernorCreator', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ vaultFactoryGovernorCreator settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', 'vaultFactoryVoteCreator', ] ℹ vaultFactoryVoteCreator settled; remaining: [ 'lienBridge', ] ℹ && task was past its deadline when scheduled: 0 && ℹ @@ schedule task for:3600, currently: 0 @@ ℹ addAsset { denom: 'ibc/abc123', issuer: '[object Alleged: ibc/abc123 issuer]', keyword: 'ibc/abc123', } Rejected promise returned by test. Reason: Error { message: 'Must first setReserveDepositFacet', } ```

…them

turadg · 2022-05-26T20:22:35Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

+    );
+
+    const secondaryIssuer = await E(ammPublicFacet).getIssuer(secondaryBrand);
+    // ??? why don't these objects have methods?


@Chris-Hibbert @dckc do you know a way to get objects that match the typedef for Brand and/or Issuer? Then I could use getAllegedName() to make the tests more readable.

are the objects remote? you should be able to use E(brand).getAllegedName().

turadg · 2022-05-26T20:24:49Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

@@ -51,9 +51,22 @@ const start = async (zcf, privateArgs) => {
  /**
   * Used to look up the brands for keywords, excluding RUN because it's a special case.
   *
-   * @type {MapStore<Keyword, [brand: Brand, liquidityBrand: Brand]>}


@Chris-Hibbert given the requirement that AddCollateral invitation accept any brand, I thought it cleanest to make these maps ignore the liquidity distinction. instead that's handled through a separate lookup between brands.

dckc

my brain is kinda polluted with other stuff; I hope @Chris-Hibbert can get to this soon

dckc · 2022-05-26T20:43:48Z

packages/run-protocol/src/proposals/econ-behaviors.js

@@ -261,6 +265,9 @@ export const setupReserve = async ({
    },
  },
 }) => {
+  trace('setupReserve');
+  await reserveInstallation;


what's this for? why await it and then throw away the resolution?

earlier feedback on missing producers. I'll do some cleanup since they're confusing

dckc · 2022-05-26T20:46:42Z

packages/run-protocol/src/proposals/econ-behaviors.js

+  const reserveInstance = await space.instance.consume.reserve;
+  trace({ reserveInstance });
+  const reservePublicFacet = await E(space.consume.zoe).getPublicFacet(
+    reserveInstance,
+  );
+  const ammCreatorFacet = await space.consume.ammCreatorFacet;


These awaits aren't necessary. I can imagine they were helpful for debugging... and I guess this isn't performance-sensitive stuff... so I guess we might as well leave them there to facilitate future debugging.

dckc · 2022-05-26T20:53:30Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

+    );
+
+    const secondaryIssuer = await E(ammPublicFacet).getIssuer(secondaryBrand);
+    // ??? why don't these objects have methods?


are the objects remote? you should be able to use E(brand).getAllegedName().

Chris-Hibbert

Not a final review, just responses to questions, and initial reactions

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T20:30:28Z

packages/run-protocol/test/vaultFactory/test-vaultFactory.js

@@ -630,6 +645,8 @@ test('price drop', async t => {
    shortfallBalance: AmountMath.makeEmpty(runBrand),
  });
  await m.assertChange({
+    // FIXME expects to know liquidity brand


The test can look up the liquidityBrand from the AMM. The AMM is in scope
(services.ammFacets.ammPublicFacet).

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T20:32:17Z

packages/deploy-script-support/test/unitTests/test-startInstance.js

@@ -47,10 +49,15 @@ test('startInstance', async t => {
    },
  };

+  /** @type {Petname=} */


Does this drive-by fix fit in another PR?

I don't know where it would go. I was burning down my problems pane.

Prefer that I take it out? would a separate commit in this PR with "merge" instead of squash suffice?

separate commit would be nice. don't take it out, is my preference

pulled non-run-protocol changes out to 66fffd9 so I can squash this PR.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T20:44:12Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

+  /**
+   * @param {Brand} secondaryBrand
+   */
+  const addIssuerFromAmm = async secondaryBrand => {


secondaryBrand is really the AMM's concept. I realize the Reserve knows that these brands are not the AMM's centralBrand, but after initialization, the Reserve doesn't treat them differently. I'd prefer that the param name here either be brand or ammSecondaryBrand. WDYT?

agreed it's an AMM concept. I thought being within method scoped names to AMM but I take your point. I do want to be clear that this is only for secondary brands from AMM and not liquidity brands, so i'll go with ammSecondaryBrand.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T20:50:30Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

+    assert(
+      secondaryBrand !== runKit.brand,
+      `${RunKW} is a special case handled by the reserve contract`,
+    );


If addIssuerFromAMM is public, it has to verify that the brand is a secondary brand (not a liquidity brand) with the AMM before adding it. Otherwise, someone could bollix up our careful plans by calling addIssuerFromAmm(doubloonLiquidityBrand).
Why doesn't it work to add both issuers when someone (the AMM?) calls addIssuerFromAmm?

If addIssuerFromAMM is public, it has to verify that the brand is a secondary brand (not a liquidity brand) with the AMM before adding it. Otherwise, someone could bollix up our careful plans by calling addIssuerFromAmm(doubloonLiquidityBrand).

Had to read this a few times. Repeating what I got:

this design has addIssuerFromAMM public which means it has to verify the brand argument is a secondary brand with the AMM before adding it

the line const issuer = await E(ammPublicFacet).getIssuer(ammSecondaryBrand); can return a liquidity brand

therefore someone could bollix up our careful plans by calling addIssuerFromAmm(doubloonLiquidityBrand).

Why doesn't it work to add both issuers when someone (the AMM?) calls addIssuerFromAmm?

IIRC, the liquidity issuer wasn't yet defined on the AMM so the E(ammPublicFacet).getLiquidityIssuer call would fail.

Let's chat about whether we can simplify this.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T20:57:50Z

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/multipoolMarketMaker.js

+      // DISCUSSION: this gumms up all the testing setup to require the reserve to be created AND set onto the AMM
+      // before the AMM can add an issuer


If the Reserve (or some intermediary) pulled the liquidity tokens later, then the AMM wouldn't have to be sure that the Reserve was ready for the Liquidity tokens when the pool was created.

Yes. The "just-in-time" design had that. I thought you pressed for the caller having to set things up before sending liquidity to the reserve.

I think it's moot now as I've done the plumbing to make the AMM have the reserve early enough. I think it's better overall as it ensures a "valid" state of the contract earlier.

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/multipoolMarketMaker.js

packages/run-protocol/test/amm/vpool-xyk-amm/setup.js

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T21:07:32Z

packages/run-protocol/test/test-interchainPool.js

+  const farZoeKit = await setUpZoeForTest();
+  const { zoe } = farZoeKit;


Is this an orthogonal fix, or is it somehow associated with the reserve changes?

I had to do a lot of bootstrap cleanup to get things loading in the right order. I don't remember whether this one was strictly necessary.

turadg · 2022-05-26T23:39:54Z

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/multipoolMarketMaker.js

+       * @param {AssetReservePublicFacet} facet
+       */
+      setReserveDepositFacet: facet => {
+        // FIXME more than deposits


for now how about simply setReservePublicFacet?

turadg · 2022-05-26T23:40:25Z

packages/run-protocol/test/reserve/test-reserve.js

@@ -206,7 +206,8 @@ test('governance add Liquidity to the AMM', async t => {
    'should be 80K',
  );

-  await E(reserve.reserveCreatorFacet).addIssuer(moolaR.issuer, 'Moola');
+  // FIXME handle repeats


conjureKeyword seems to work well. I'll remove this comment in next push if you agree.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-26T23:54:56Z

I added closes: #5271 in the top comment.

turadg · 2022-05-27T00:46:28Z

I added closes: #5271 in the top comment.

If that auto-closes it may look like "Reserve's addIssuer … public" is the state of master. Since we decided to take another approach, would it be better to close that with a comment on why?

Chris-Hibbert

Getting close. A few minor requests for changes.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:11:00Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

+  /**
+   * @type {MapStore<Brand, Brand>}
+   */
+  const liquidityBrandForBrand = makeStore('liquidityBrands');


The argument to makeStore() is supposed to describe the key, not the value.

not sure how to distinguish then between two maps with the same keys but different values.

leaving for now since the maps in master describe the value, not the keyword https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/blob/master/packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js#L50-L56

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:12:56Z

packages/run-protocol/src/reserve/assetReserve.js

+  /**
+   * @param {Issuer} baseIssuer on which the liquidity issuer is based
+   */


Suggested change

/**

* @param {Issuer} baseIssuer on which the liquidity issuer is based

*/

/** @param {Issuer} issuer on which the liquidity issuer is based */

baseIssuer isn't part of the sentence. Here's how it looks in an IDE:

If you're proposing to rename the parameter, I think that would make the body less clear. I could add a dash to separate, but I think that's a style decision we should perform universally, not ad hoc in PR review. I could make it baseIssuer issuer on which if you think that would be better.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:20:42Z

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/multipoolMarketMaker.js

+       */
+      setReserveDepositFacet: facet => {
+        // FIXME more than deposits
+        reserveDepositFacet = facet;


I think this should assert !reserveDepositFacet before setting.

I'd prefer that this facet was visible via governance, but failing that, it should be set-once.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:23:41Z

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/addPool.js

+      'and got back',
+      issuer,
+    );
+    // this ensures that getSecondaryIssuer will return


Suggested change

// this ensures that getSecondaryIssuer will return

// this ensures that getSecondaryIssuer(thisIssuer) will return even before the pool is created

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:26:48Z

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/addPool.js

+    // ??? still need this deferred lookup?
+    const addIssuerToReserve = getAddIssuerToReserve();


yes, I believe so. It also makes it simpler to transition to a governed parameter if we decide to go that way.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:38:06Z

packages/run-protocol/src/vpool-xyk-amm/multipoolMarketMaker.js

+  /**
+   *
+   */


Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:40:19Z

packages/run-protocol/test/amm/vpool-xyk-amm/setup.js

+  farZoeKit,
 ) => {
-  if (!zoe) {
-    ({ zoe } = await setUpZoeForTest());
+  if (!farZoeKit) {
+    farZoeKit = await setUpZoeForTest();


Can this be simplified back out, too? [I thought you said similar code was added elsewhere to assist in debugging, but was no longer useful.]

I don't think so. In this case the need for farZoeKit had to be wired through.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T00:44:39Z

packages/run-protocol/test/vaultFactory/test-liquidator.js

@@ -141,13 +142,17 @@ const setupAmmAndElectorate = async (t, aethLiquidity, runLiquidity) => {
  const space = setupBootstrap(t, timer);
  const { consume, instance } = space;
  installGovernance(zoe, space.installation.produce);
+  // TODO


TODO what?

hehe. I remember that was for DRYing out the next two lines. I plan to use

agoric-sdk/packages/run-protocol/test/supports.js

Lines 163 to 167 in 358c8b7

export const produceInstallations = (space, installations) => {

for (const [key, installation] of Object.entries(installations)) {

space.installation.produce[key].resolve(installation);

}

};

I'll save that for another PR. WDYT of it @dckc ?

it's a reasonable idiom... I'm not sure it carries its weight as an exported function, where a reader has to switch context to learn what it does.

Presuming const { entries } = Object, it's a one-liner:

entries(installations).forEach(([key, installation]) => space.installation.produce[key].resolve(installation));

I don't have much of a problem making the function available, but I think there's a significant risk that folks will open-code it rather than remember that it's available as a helper function.

The helper function should take just the space.installation part, not the whole space. POLA.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T16:07:36Z

I added closes: #5271 in the top comment.

If that auto-closes it may look like "Reserve's addIssuer … public" is the state of master. Since we decided to take another approach, would it be better to close that with a comment on why?

I don't have strong opinions. It's clear that merging this, makes that issue moot. Feel free to remove the closes: marker. I justs wanted to remember to close the other.

Chris-Hibbert

Minor comments. I trust your judgement on whether to address them or leave them as is.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T16:27:33Z

packages/run-protocol/test/amm/vpool-xyk-amm/test-liquidity.js

+
+  const electorateTerms = { committeeName: 'EnBancPanel', committeeSize: 3 };
+  // This timer is only used to build quotes. Let's make it non-zero
+  const timer = buildManualTimer(console.log, 30n);


When the timer won't be used again in the current scope, I prefer to initialize it inline in the call (line 344) so as not to add its name to the local scope. In this case, there's a default value, so it's just as good to let it default, so it's never visible here. electorateTerms can also be moved into the call.

Chris-Hibbert · 2022-05-27T16:30:38Z

packages/run-protocol/test/vaultFactory/test-liquidator.js

+  // // make the installation available for setupReserve
+  // iProduce.reserve.resolve(t.context.installation.reserve);
+  // // produce the reserve instance in the space
+  // await setupReserve(space);


dckc · 2022-05-27T17:11:13Z

packages/run-protocol/src/proposals/econ-behaviors.js

@@ -267,7 +267,6 @@ export const setupReserve = async ({
  },
 }) => {
  trace('setupReserve');
-  console.trace('setupReserve');


ah. that makes sense.

Perhaps the console provided by SwingSet doesn't have .trace.

turadg force-pushed the 5408-reserve-gets-amm-liquidity branch 2 times, most recently from 2b66bee to 1d82acd Compare May 25, 2022 21:47

turadg requested review from Chris-Hibbert and dckc May 25, 2022 21:49

turadg force-pushed the 5408-reserve-gets-amm-liquidity branch from 1d82acd to c822c99 Compare May 26, 2022 15:07

turadg added 7 commits May 26, 2022 13:09

refactor(amm): get reservePublicFacet after start

30debd0

refactor(amm): onOfferHandled callback

cf101aa

feat(amm): move surplus initial liquidity to reserve

9889b0c

test: refactor to support reserve bootstrap requirements

9e3e506

link reserve and AMM setup

b72ca61

mostly green; some challenges with naming liquity brands and testing …

fd44fca

…them

turadg force-pushed the 5408-reserve-gets-amm-liquidity branch from c822c99 to fd44fca Compare May 26, 2022 20:19

turadg commented May 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

chore: logging cleanup

92f169e

dckc reviewed May 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

Chris-Hibbert reviewed May 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

turadg added 10 commits May 26, 2022 14:29

conjureKeyword

8a881cb

checkReserveAllocation driver

04f9a53

fixup! conjureKeyword

53ee952

fixup! chore: logging cleanup

f37c582

fixup! chore: logging cleanup

1dfb174

fixup! test: refactor to support reserve bootstrap requirements

5fb62a7

fixup! conjureKeyword

88f885e

fixup! link reserve and AMM setup

514439f

restrct to secondary brands

a3677ef

fixup! conjureKeyword

94ce951

turadg commented May 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

fixup! conjureKeyword

358c8b7

turadg requested review from dckc and Chris-Hibbert May 26, 2022 23:46

turadg marked this pull request as ready for review May 26, 2022 23:46

turadg requested a review from dtribble as a code owner May 26, 2022 23:46

Chris-Hibbert requested changes May 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

turadg added 3 commits May 27, 2022 07:44

resolveReserveFacet

d2bc9c0

Merge branch 'master' into 5408-reserve-gets-amm-liquidity

d073a0c

revert changes outside run-protocol

ac62303

turadg changed the title ~~feat(amm): push reserved assets to reserve contract~~ feat(amm)!: push reserved assets to reserve contract May 27, 2022

lint

aab397b

turadg added the automerge:squash Automatically squash merge label May 27, 2022

turadg requested a review from Chris-Hibbert May 27, 2022 15:07

console.trace seems to be breaking test-cosmic-swingset

d30e029

Chris-Hibbert approved these changes May 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

turadg mentioned this pull request May 27, 2022

Reserve's addIssuer should be public #5271

Closed

dckc reviewed May 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

turadg added 2 commits May 27, 2022 10:39

fix dependency expression in bootstrap

0255187

Merge branch 'master' into 5408-reserve-gets-amm-liquidity

34c35cb

dckc mentioned this pull request May 27, 2022

console API on XS: compatibility, security impact? #2146

Closed

4 tasks

mergify bot merged commit 20472a1 into master May 27, 2022

mergify bot deleted the 5408-reserve-gets-amm-liquidity branch May 27, 2022 18:14

dckc mentioned this pull request May 27, 2022

InstAgoric network for Econ Stress Test (xnet) #5375

Closed

17 tasks

Chris-Hibbert mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2022

fix: handle parallel requests to add an issuer in AMM #5596

Merged

		// DISCUSSION: this gumms up all the testing setup to require the reserve to be created AND set onto the AMM
		// before the AMM can add an issuer

		const farZoeKit = await setUpZoeForTest();
		const { zoe } = farZoeKit;

	// this ensures that getSecondaryIssuer will return
	// this ensures that getSecondaryIssuer(thisIssuer) will return even before the pool is created

		// ??? still need this deferred lookup?
		const addIssuerToReserve = getAddIssuerToReserve();

	export const produceInstallations = (space, installations) => {
	for (const [key, installation] of Object.entries(installations)) {
	space.installation.produce[key].resolve(installation);
	}
	};

feat(amm)!: push reserved assets to reserve contract #5429

feat(amm)!: push reserved assets to reserve contract #5429

Conversation

turadg commented May 25, 2022 • edited Loading

Description

Security Considerations

Documentation Considerations

Testing Considerations

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dckc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Chris-Hibbert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Chris-Hibbert commented May 26, 2022 • edited Loading

turadg commented May 27, 2022

Chris-Hibbert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Chris-Hibbert commented May 27, 2022

Chris-Hibbert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

turadg commented May 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Chris-Hibbert commented May 26, 2022 •

edited

Loading