Update liquidity data naming

[Rubilmax]

Pull Request

Issue(s) fixed

This is a naming suggestion, which I find clearer (at least)

[MathisGD]

Why not using maxDebt instead of liquidationThreshold ?

[QGarchery]

I liked the "value" suffix that we used on Compound, because:

• it allows to have the same denomination for both Compound and Aave
• it is more natural to me. I believe you can say "my debt value is ..." but not "my debt USD is ...", it should be "my debt in USD is ..."

[pakim249CAL]

I like it. There may be minor arguments against some of this, but as it stands it removes ambiguity about what the variables are.

[pakim249CAL]

Duplicate approve sorry. Github was acting up.

[pakim249CAL]

One thing to keep in mind is that we should NOT use inETH naming in V3 to remain chain agnostic. AAVE has also discussed not using ETH as the quote currency at some points, so it's important to have a more generic name ready for if that happens.

[MerlinEgalite]

Should we merge it since we already merged the change with liquidationThresholdValue?

[Rubilmax]

Should we merge it since we already merged the change with liquidationThresholdValue?

The PR for liquidationThresholdValue is fixing a specific issue raised by Spearbit
This PR is a proposal to completely rename the liquidity struct fields, to try to make it clearer (from the discussion we had in #1474)

So the decision on whether we should merge it or not should not depend on whether we've previously merged "the change with liquidationThresholdValue"

I still think this PR adds much clarity

[MerlinEgalite]

Should we merge it since we already merged the change with liquidationThresholdValue?

The PR for liquidationThresholdValue is fixing a specific issue raised by Spearbit This PR is a proposal to completely rename the liquidity struct fields, to try to make it clearer (from the discussion we had in #1474)

So the decision on whether we should merge it or not should not depend on whether we've previously merged "the change with liquidationThresholdValue"

I still think this PR adds much clarity

Ok wanted to make sure.

Can you fix the conflicts, please? i guess we'll be able to merge it

[Rubilmax]

I added a small change for coherence

[MerlinEgalite]

It's changing the bytecode right?

[Rubilmax]

It's changing the bytecode right?

Yes it is changing the bytecode, but it's ok to change the bytecode for the next audit session?

[MerlinEgalite]

It's changing the bytecode right?

Yes it is changing the bytecode, but it's ok to change the bytecode for the next audit session?

Ah yes sorry about that!

Actually I checked and it does not change the bytecode btw

[Rubilmax]

Actually I checked and it does not change the bytecode btw

Oh, surprising