Skip to content

Conversation

@0xcacti
Copy link
Contributor

@0xcacti 0xcacti commented Nov 14, 2025

Description

Related Issue(s)

  • Closes #[issue number]

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update
  • Other (please describe):

Breaking Change

If this PR introduces a breaking change, please provide a detailed description of the impact and the migration path for existing applications.

Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have run ./scripts/fix_rust.sh to ensure my code is formatted and linted correctly
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Screenshots (if applicable)

Please include any relevant screenshots or GIFs that demonstrate the changes made.

Additional Notes

Please provide any additional information or context that may be helpful for reviewers.

@sam0x17 sam0x17 changed the base branch from devnet-ready to devnet November 14, 2025 05:54
@0xcacti 0xcacti force-pushed the fix/liquidity-tracking branch from 41d95fc to 4f9da00 Compare November 14, 2025 05:58
@sam0x17 sam0x17 merged commit 7f20e82 into opentensor:devnet Nov 14, 2025
16 of 21 checks passed
@0xcacti 0xcacti deleted the fix/liquidity-tracking branch November 14, 2025 06:35
@sam0x17 sam0x17 mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2025
@Swamination-Yuma
Copy link

I request that all PRs have actual descriptions of the issue and the resolution. They do not have to be verbose, but PRs are not transparent to the community readily without reading code. It also helps non-approvers who are reviewing to know if it actually meets the need or raises concerns. It also provides history of the mindset of the product. The PR template is mostly ignored atm. Approvers should require this, imo.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants