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
Integration of pallet orlm xtoken #701
Conversation
Hounsette
commented
Feb 1, 2023
•
edited
edited
- CurrencyId conversion for incoming xcm (hard coded)
f3343a8
to
90bd6e6
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #701 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.20% 78.18% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 43 43
Lines 7580 7596 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 5928 5939 +11
- Misses 1652 1657 +5
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
type MaxAssetsForTransfer = MaxAssetsForTransfer; | ||
type MinXcmFee = ParachainMinFee; | ||
type MultiLocationsFilter = Everything; | ||
type ReserveProvider = RelativeReserveProvider; |
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.
If AbsoluteReserveProvider
can work here, it could be a better choice as it's not altering the way a local/native asset is addressed.
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.
I am having an error with Asset has no reserve error when switching to an absolute reserver provider. Must be something missing in the config.
Co-authored-by: Alex Sedighi <alex@nodle.com>
fa39c2c
to
c7d74ef
Compare
1423f92
to
131c40a
Compare
// One XCM operation is 1_000_000_000 weight - almost certainly a conservative estimate. | ||
pub UnitWeightCost: u64 = 1_000_000_000; | ||
// One XCM operation is 200_000_000 weight - almost certainly a conservative estimate. | ||
pub UnitWeightCost: u64 = 200_000_000; |
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.
Is this a weight that should be benchmarked?
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.
yes
Co-authored-by: Fredrik Simonsson <fredrik@nodle.com>
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.
LGTM. There will be a separate PR for benchmarking.