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

[BUG] Astroport Smart Contract Update #262

Open
LuncBurner opened this issue Jun 16, 2023 · 9 comments
Open

[BUG] Astroport Smart Contract Update #262

LuncBurner opened this issue Jun 16, 2023 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@LuncBurner
Copy link

Describe the bug
Astroport has stated that they will not update their existing smart contract to support parity. An solution to provide the ability for end-users to swap LUNC to and from USTC is required.

@inon-man
Copy link
Collaborator

Interesting. It remind me to start thinking strategically about how to deal with existing dApps in the future. What should we do with native tokens left in dApp wallets?

@inon-man inon-man moved this from 🏗 In progress to 📋 Backlog in L1 Q2 Sprint #6 June 11th - June 23rd Jun 17, 2023
@LuncBurner
Copy link
Author

@inon-man this is definitely a philosophical question, and I think we'll need to set up a separate issue as a discussion thread for it -- with respect to native tokens left in dApp wallets. Another example, what should be done with the value locked in MIR? Both are really good discussion items.

@nghuyenthevinh2000
Copy link
Contributor

@inon-man
Copy link
Collaborator

@inon-man this is definitely a philosophical question, and I think we'll need to set up a separate issue as a discussion thread for it -- with respect to native tokens left in dApp wallets. Another example, what should be done with the value locked in MIR? Both are really good discussion items.

Agreed. I think the community needs a debate on this.

@nghuyenthevinh2000
Copy link
Contributor

all syntax errors are cleared, moving on to unit testing

@nghuyenthevinh2000
Copy link
Contributor

nghuyenthevinh2000 commented Jul 4, 2023

based on this deprecation warning: https://github.com/classic-terra/cw-storage-plus/blob/38e23673958b5e56f2138ca9c1e893cfd4d90034/src/keys.rs#L342

maybe, there is a chance that u64 and U64Key is the same. Nope, it can't be the same.

However, there is a version that matches with current wasmd which has legacy supports for U64Key: cw-storage-plus = "0.11.1"

Testing about this specific case at: https://github.com/nghuyenthevinh2000/contract-playground/tree/main/contracts/u64key-migrate

@faddat
Copy link
Contributor

faddat commented Jul 5, 2023

Looks like decent progress, I'm going to make an issue here that sort of just like collects whining from the community and let's go from there

@nghuyenthevinh2000
Copy link
Contributor

U64Key and u64 is compatible, tests have been done with following scenario:

  1. instantiate old contract
  2. query from storage with U64Key
  3. migrate
  4. query from storage with u64
  5. execute on storage with u64
  6. query from storage with u64
Screenshot 2023-07-07 at 10 28 12

@fragwuerdig
Copy link
Collaborator

Which sounds awesome!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
No open projects
Status: 🏗 In progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants