Implement parameters for liquidity tournament control (in funding) #5020
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cronokirby
added
the
consensus-breaking
erwanor
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2025
erwanor
requested changes
Jan 29, 2025
|
Other than that LGTM |
Closes #5013. I also added a little utility type for representing percentages. Not strictly necessary, but I think it's a good move towards type safety. The motivation here was all of the annoyance of dealing with keeping track of what u64s were bps or bps^2 or yadda yadda yadda in other parts of the codebase.
cronokirby
force-pushed
the
cronokirby/5013
branch
from
f20af27 to
4af0be1
Compare
erwanor
reviewed
Jan 29, 2025
| @@ -30,7 +30,9 @@ impl Component for Funding { | |||
| #[instrument(name = "funding", skip(state, app_state))] | |||
| async fn init_chain<S: StateWrite>(mut state: S, app_state: Option<&Self::AppState>) { | |||
| match app_state { | |||
| None => { /* Checkpoint -- no-op */ } | |||
| None => { | |||
| state.put_funding_params(FundingParameters::default()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah. I misspoke, and I understand your previous point better, I was thinking of the other variant Some(app_state). Here this is indeed a no-op. The None case is only
Let me fix it
erwanor
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2025
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2025
Closes #5013. Diverges slightly from the ADR draft in that it creates a nested proto sub-message specific to the LQT. My rationale here was that this is nicer than prefixing every relevant field with "liquidity_tournament", both in the proto definitions, but also in the Rust code, because that way we can have a default for that entire set of parameters, and then the code can explicitly mark the absence of that set as to be interpreted as this default. Also works nicer for the future, in which we might be using the funding component for other things, each of which can cleanly have its own set of parameters. I also added a little utility type for representing percentages. Not strictly necessary, but I think it's a good move towards type safety. The motivation here was all of the annoyance of dealing with keeping track of what u64s were bps or bps^2 or yadda yadda yadda in other parts of the codebase. I've added some relevant unit tests. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new parameters that can be voted on, so consensus-breaking. --------- Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
Closes #5013. Diverges slightly from the ADR draft in that it creates a nested proto sub-message specific to the LQT. My rationale here was that this is nicer than prefixing every relevant field with "liquidity_tournament", both in the proto definitions, but also in the Rust code, because that way we can have a default for that entire set of parameters, and then the code can explicitly mark the absence of that set as to be interpreted as this default. Also works nicer for the future, in which we might be using the funding component for other things, each of which can cleanly have its own set of parameters. I also added a little utility type for representing percentages. Not strictly necessary, but I think it's a good move towards type safety. The motivation here was all of the annoyance of dealing with keeping track of what u64s were bps or bps^2 or yadda yadda yadda in other parts of the codebase. I've added some relevant unit tests. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new parameters that can be voted on, so consensus-breaking. --------- Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
Closes #5013. Diverges slightly from the ADR draft in that it creates a nested proto sub-message specific to the LQT. My rationale here was that this is nicer than prefixing every relevant field with "liquidity_tournament", both in the proto definitions, but also in the Rust code, because that way we can have a default for that entire set of parameters, and then the code can explicitly mark the absence of that set as to be interpreted as this default. Also works nicer for the future, in which we might be using the funding component for other things, each of which can cleanly have its own set of parameters. I also added a little utility type for representing percentages. Not strictly necessary, but I think it's a good move towards type safety. The motivation here was all of the annoyance of dealing with keeping track of what u64s were bps or bps^2 or yadda yadda yadda in other parts of the codebase. I've added some relevant unit tests. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new parameters that can be voted on, so consensus-breaking. --------- Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
Closes #5013. Diverges slightly from the ADR draft in that it creates a nested proto sub-message specific to the LQT. My rationale here was that this is nicer than prefixing every relevant field with "liquidity_tournament", both in the proto definitions, but also in the Rust code, because that way we can have a default for that entire set of parameters, and then the code can explicitly mark the absence of that set as to be interpreted as this default. Also works nicer for the future, in which we might be using the funding component for other things, each of which can cleanly have its own set of parameters. I also added a little utility type for representing percentages. Not strictly necessary, but I think it's a good move towards type safety. The motivation here was all of the annoyance of dealing with keeping track of what u64s were bps or bps^2 or yadda yadda yadda in other parts of the codebase. I've added some relevant unit tests. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > adds new parameters that can be voted on, so consensus-breaking. --------- Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Closes #5013.
Diverges slightly from the ADR draft in that it creates a nested proto sub-message specific to the LQT. My rationale here was that this is nicer than prefixing every relevant field with "liquidity_tournament", both in the proto definitions, but also in the Rust code, because that way we can have a default for that entire set of parameters, and then the code can explicitly mark the absence of that set as to be interpreted as this default. Also works nicer for the future, in which we might be using the funding component for other things, each of which can cleanly have its own set of parameters.
I also added a little utility type for representing percentages. Not
strictly necessary, but I think it's a good move towards type safety.
The motivation here was all of the annoyance of dealing with keeping
track of what u64s were bps or bps^2 or yadda yadda yadda in other parts
of the codebase.
I've added some relevant unit tests.
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: