Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 18, 2023. It is now read-only.

Conversation

bweick
Copy link
Contributor

@bweick bweick commented Jul 21, 2018

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 21, 2018

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 776

  • 9 of 9 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.006%) to 99.757%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 760: 0.006%
Covered Lines: 306
Relevant Lines: 306

💛 - Coveralls

)
external
onlyAuthorized
isNonZero(_quantity)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are these being removed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because to we might batch deposit 0 tokens from one exchange but we still are passing on an array that contains the 0 so needed to remove that. Unless we want to do some array pruning somewhere.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you give me an example? I think this is suboptimal for gas, prefer some kind of efficient pruning

uint[] _quantities
)
internal
isValidBatchTransaction(_tokenAddresses, _quantities)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same ^

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As I go back...I agree that there's no reason to remove those modifiers. It was breaking before and I thought that was the case...I wonder if something was changed in a rebase cause it definitely shouldn't change anything.

state.orderFills[_order.orderHash] = state.orderFills[_order.orderHash].add(_fillQuantity);
}

function getPartialAmount(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can this get moved into a lib

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure could was looking for a lib that made sense in our set up so just left it as is. But could move into OrderLibrary I suppose.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1

@asoong
Copy link
Contributor

asoong commented Jul 21, 2018

Couple of questions, i'd like to see another parameter in each scenario that describes the outcome and/or flows that it goes through

settleOrder(order, _fillQuantity, _orderData);

//Issue Set
//Issue Settle
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

need a space after //, i think the precommit linting should catch these things now though?

@bweick bweick force-pushed the brian/full_scenario_analysis branch from 2bf01a3 to 4c18fe9 Compare July 22, 2018 23:21
@bweick bweick merged commit 66f68b4 into master Jul 22, 2018
@bweick bweick deleted the brian/full_scenario_analysis branch July 22, 2018 23:49
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants