Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
Contributor
sisyphusSmiling
left a comment
sisyphusSmiling
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'll also need transactions to grant & claim beta access - the existing one seems to be test-related. I think a two transaction publish & claim would be easiest to coordinate across different teams.
Comment on lines
+5
to
+8
| access(all) contract TestHelpers { | ||
|
|
||
| // Minimal sink for tests that accepts MOET and does nothing. | ||
| access(all) struct NoopSink: DeFiActions.Sink { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think contract DummyConnectors and DummySink respectively would be more descriptive
Comment on lines
+1913
to
1948
| access(EParticipant) fun deposit(from: @{FungibleToken.Vault}) { | ||
| let pool = self.pool.borrow()! | ||
| pool.depositAndPush(pid: self.id, from: <-from, pushToDrawDownSink: false) | ||
| } | ||
| /// Deposits funds to the Position enabling the caller to configure whether excess value should be pushed to the | ||
| /// drawDownSink if the deposit puts the Position above its maximum health | ||
| access(all) fun depositAndPush(from: @{FungibleToken.Vault}, pushToDrawDownSink: Bool) { | ||
| access(EParticipant) fun depositAndPush(from: @{FungibleToken.Vault}, pushToDrawDownSink: Bool) { | ||
| let pool = self.pool.borrow()! | ||
| pool.depositAndPush(pid: self.id, from: <-from, pushToDrawDownSink: pushToDrawDownSink) | ||
| } | ||
| /// Withdraws funds from the Position without pulling from the topUpSource if the deposit puts the Position below | ||
| /// its minimum health | ||
| access(FungibleToken.Withdraw) fun withdraw(type: Type, amount: UFix64): @{FungibleToken.Vault} { | ||
| return <- self.withdrawAndPull(type: type, amount: amount, pullFromTopUpSource: false) | ||
| } | ||
| /// Withdraws funds from the Position enabling the caller to configure whether insufficient value should be | ||
| /// pulled from the topUpSource if the deposit puts the Position below its minimum health | ||
| access(FungibleToken.Withdraw) fun withdrawAndPull(type: Type, amount: UFix64, pullFromTopUpSource: Bool): @{FungibleToken.Vault} { | ||
| let pool = self.pool.borrow()! | ||
| return <- pool.withdrawAndPull(pid: self.id, type: type, amount: amount, pullFromTopUpSource: pullFromTopUpSource) | ||
| } | ||
| /// Returns a new Sink for the given token type that will accept deposits of that token and update the | ||
| /// position's collateral and/or debt accordingly. Note that calling this method multiple times will create | ||
| /// multiple sinks, each of which will continue to work regardless of how many other sinks have been created. | ||
| access(all) fun createSink(type: Type): {DeFiActions.Sink} { | ||
| access(EParticipant) fun createSink(type: Type): {DeFiActions.Sink} { | ||
| // create enhanced sink with pushToDrawDownSink option | ||
| return self.createSinkWithOptions(type: type, pushToDrawDownSink: false) | ||
| } | ||
| /// Returns a new Sink for the given token type and pushToDrawDownSink opetion that will accept deposits of that | ||
| /// token and update the position's collateral and/or debt accordingly. Note that calling this method multiple | ||
| /// times will create multiple sinks, each of which will continue to work regardless of how many other sinks | ||
| /// have been created. | ||
| access(all) fun createSinkWithOptions(type: Type, pushToDrawDownSink: Bool): {DeFiActions.Sink} { | ||
| access(EParticipant) fun createSinkWithOptions(type: Type, pushToDrawDownSink: Bool): {DeFiActions.Sink} { | ||
| let pool = self.pool.borrow()! | ||
| return PositionSink(id: self.id, pool: self.pool, type: type, pushToDrawDownSink: pushToDrawDownSink) | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure these need to be altered from all to EParticipant
| // Call EParticipant-gated methods | ||
| let zero1 <- DeFiActionsUtils.getEmptyVault(Type<@MOET.Vault>()) | ||
| let pid = pool.createPosition( | ||
| funds: <- zero1, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Beyond scope of this PR, but IMO we shouldn't allow 0.0 deposits at the protocol level at least when creating a position. Might also consider a minimum open position on a relative dollar amount. It's a bit of a spam vector
sisyphusSmiling
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
alternative approach with authorized pool