Conversation
|
Let's target this deployment for Monday. |
| Queryable fields: | ||
| ``` | ||
| chainID,nft_addr,did,symbol,name,ve_allocated ocean_allocated,ve_allocated_owner, ocean_allocated_owner,ve_allocated_realtime,ocean_allocated_realtime,ve_allocated_realtime_owner,ocean_allocated_realtime_owner,volume,is_purgatory,apr,apy,owner_addr,round | ||
| chainID,nft_addr,did,symbol,name,ve_allocated ocean_allocated,ve_allocated_owner, ocean_allocated_owner,ve_allocated_realtime,ocean_allocated_realtime,ve_allocated_realtime_owner,ocean_allocated_realtime_owner,volume,is_purgatory,apr,apy,roundYield,owner_addr,round |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, saw we're still pushing apr out.
| nftRewardsAmt / (nft.ocean_allocated + nft.ocean_allocated_owner) | ||
| const nftApy = wprToApy(nftRoundYield) | ||
| nftinfo[i].roundYield = nftRoundYield | ||
| nftinfo[i].apr = nftRoundYield * 52 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see we're now calculating and reporting both properly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also see that you just added roundYield rather than remove anything, so I'm going to reconcile this with df-web
|
|
||
| expect(nftinfo[1].apy).toBeCloseTo(1.362) | ||
| expect(nftinfo[1].apr).toBeCloseTo(0.016) | ||
| expect(nftinfo[1].roundYield).toBeCloseTo(0.016) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should assert that is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, there's quite a bit we need to improve with the tests and we also need to set up a CI. I made an issue for that: #47
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have updated the tests to pass (they weren't)
idiom-bytes
left a comment
idiom-bytes
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally looks good.
Lots of reformatting changes.
Let's make sure to setup a linter.
3 participants
Fixes #45
Changes proposed in this PR: