Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bypass permissionless concentrated liquidity checks #6420

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Sep 21, 2023

Conversation

sunnya97
Copy link
Collaborator

@sunnya97 sunnya97 commented Sep 16, 2023

Closes: #6345

Creates a governance set whitelist of addresses that can bypass the normal pool creation restrictions on concentrated liquidity pools

What is the purpose of the change

  • Allow a governance subdao automatically approved stAsset/Asset pools for non-approved quote assets.
  • Allow a governance subdao to create pools when permissionless pool creation is off

Testing and Verifying

  • Added unit tests

Documentation and Release Note

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature or user-facing behavior changes?
  • Changelog entry added to Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md?

Where is the change documented?

  • Specification (x/{module}/README.md)
  • Osmosis documentation site
  • Code comments?
  • N/A

Copy link
Member

@p0mvn p0mvn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM once CI is happy!

Need to add a changelog entry for everything to pass

Comment on lines 117 to 121
fmt.Println("setting")
fmt.Println(params.UnrestrictedPoolCreatorWhitelist)
s.App.ConcentratedLiquidityKeeper.SetParams(s.Ctx, params)
fmt.Println("getting")
fmt.Println(s.App.ConcentratedLiquidityKeeper.GetParams(s.Ctx).UnrestrictedPoolCreatorWhitelist)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: prints but I saw them being removed in a follow-up PR so good with keeping them until then

Copy link
Member

@mattverse mattverse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Implementation straight forward and lgtm for me as well, I'm wondering why e2e is failing, Im wondering if it could be the new param that we are adding, might need to handle it in upgrades.go?

@sunnya97 sunnya97 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 18, 2023 13:20
@github-actions github-actions bot added T:CI C:app-wiring Changes to the app folder labels Sep 18, 2023
.github/dependabot.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/dependabot.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CHANGELOG.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the T:CI label Sep 18, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the C:app-wiring Changes to the app folder label Sep 18, 2023
@sunnya97
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm not sure why my e2e is failing ☹️

@p0mvn
Copy link
Member

p0mvn commented Sep 19, 2023

I'm not sure why my e2e is failing ☹️

There was an issue on main. Got fixed yesterday by: #6426

Merging main here might help

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 20, 2023

Important Notice

This PR modifies an in-repo Go module. It is one of:

  • osmomath
  • osmoutils
  • x/ibc-hooks
  • x/epochs

The dependent Go modules, especially the root one, will have to be
updated to reflect the changes. Failing to do so might cause e2e to fail.

Please follow the instructions below:

  1. Open https://github.com/osmosis-labs/osmosis/actions/workflows/go-mod-auto-bump.yml
  2. Provide the current branch name
  3. On success, confirm if an automated commit corretly updated the go.mod and go.sum files

Please let us know if you need any help.

@czarcas7ic
Copy link
Member

Re-requesting reviews since I added logic on top of this, but logic that is required to properly initialize new params for this PR and future PRs.

0441ca3

Comment on lines +27 to +28
// Initialize the newly created param
keepers.ConcentratedLiquidityKeeper.SetParam(ctx, cltypes.KeyUnrestrictedPoolCreatorWhitelist, []string{})
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This feels like something that the upstream SDK should automate. WDYT about opening up an issue?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will open up an issue rn and link it here, good idea

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member

@p0mvn p0mvn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

e2e fix makes sense to me! Nice work @czarcas7ic and @sunnya97

@sunnya97
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ah yes, this makes sense

Copy link
Member

@mattverse mattverse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work on the investigation @czarcas7ic ! 🎊

IMO we should have an API for this upstream where we can pass in the param we are adding and then rest is taken care of in sdk

Copy link
Member

@czarcas7ic czarcas7ic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approved, merging, thanks all

@czarcas7ic czarcas7ic merged commit b7c73fb into main Sep 21, 2023
1 check passed
@czarcas7ic czarcas7ic deleted the sunny/bypass-cl-checks- branch September 21, 2023 15:26
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

feat: whitelist for accounts that can create pools for non-whitelisted quote assets
4 participants