DEX usage fee

[CyberHoward]

📢 Type of change

▫️ Bugfix
▫️ New feature
▫️ Enhancement
▫️ Refactoring
▫️ Maintenance

📜 Description and Motivation

🛠️ How to test (if applicable)

📝 Checklist

▫️ Reviewed submitted code
▫️ Added tests to verify changes
▫️ Updated docs
▫️ Verified on testnet

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #230 (d95b055) into main (22bc201) will increase coverage by 0.23%.
The diff coverage is 90.56%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #230      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.16%   53.40%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         114      116       +2     
  Lines        4117     4144      +27     
==========================================
+ Hits         2189     2213      +24     
- Misses       1928     1931       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
contracts/native/ibc-client/src/commands.rs	26.66% <ø> (ø)
packages/abstract-app/src/endpoints.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/abstract-os/src/objects/pool/pool_id.rs	52.54% <ø> (ø)
packages/abstract-sdk/src/apis/verify.rs	81.25% <80.76%> (-9.08%)	⬇️
packages/abstract-os/src/modules/apis/dex.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/abstract-os/src/objects/fee.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/abstract-sdk/src/apis/dex.rs	73.17% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/abstract-sdk/src/cw_helpers/fees.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[adairrr]

So I guess the json would be:

{
  "app": {
    "action": {
      "action": {
        "swap": {...}
      },
      "dex": "lolswap",
    }
  }
}

[adairrr]

{
  "app": {
    "execute": {
      "dex": "lolswap",
      "action": {
        "swap": {...}
      },
    }
  }
}

?

[adairrr]

The users shouldn't be interacting with the json too much but still the nested duplicate names can be confusing.

[adairrr]

An alternative to this is to add a configure "endpoint" to the ApiExecuteMsg which would be a different "handler" on the API. That way we don't add additional nesting at the api module level.

[adairrr]

Hmmmm.....
Executing:

{
  "app": {
    "dex": "lolswap",
    "action": {
      "swap": {...}
    },
  }
}

Configuring:

{
  "configure": {
    "update_fee": {...}
  }
}

[adairrr]

I'd like to discuss this during standup

[CyberHoward]

I think adding a #[serde(flatten)] tag to the action variant should remove the nested nature of the msg

[CyberHoward]

I'm not even sure if those unit-enum variants actually get their own key or if the inner value name is used as key.

[CyberHoward]

This code:

use serde::{Serialize, Deserialize};

#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Clone, Debug)]
struct FooFoo {
    x: i32,
}
#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Clone, Debug)]
enum Bar {
    Foo(FooFoo),
    Baz,
}

fn main() {
    let bar = Bar::Foo(FooFoo { x: 42 });

    println!("bar = {:?}", bar);
    println!("bar = {}", serde_json::to_string_pretty(&bar).unwrap());
}

Returns:

bar = Foo(FooFoo { x: 42 })
bar = {
  "Foo": {
    "x": 42
  }
}

[CyberHoward]

We could also opt for a "type" tag which would look like:

bar = {
  "type": "Foo",
  "x": 42
}

And change the Action name to something different.