Sdai adapter and substream #102
Conversation
…tion, buy function
Sdai adapter sdk integration
…n due to a bug in runPoolBehaviour with constant price pools.
…nt_tx(tx, &sdai_address)
…apter-and-substream Sdk implementation/sdai adapter and substream
| 90) / | ||
| 100; | ||
| limits[1] = savingsDai.previewDeposit(limits[0]); | ||
| limits[0] = 3 * (10 ** 24); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you explain this value it seems very arbitrary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kayibal It is the DAI total supply value approx., and we need to use static values due to the incompatibility issue between substreams and external calls
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can overwrite the token's totalSupply so ideally we should track this via attributes
Currently, DAI supply is 1000 times bigger than this number.
| limits[0] = 3 * (10 ** 24); | ||
| limits[1] = limits[0]; | ||
| } else { | ||
| uint256 totalAssets = savingsDai.totalAssets(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kayibal I think this is not possible with the current Simulation module, as we override the tokens, right?
Maybe we can change it to ignore the token overrides when executing functions that are not price and swap - but that would still require us to track this token's storage.
|
|
||
| [dependencies] | ||
| ethabi = "17" | ||
| hex-literal.workspace = true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Workspace dependencies are deprecated, please update
| # A comma separated list of args to be passed to the constructor of the Adapter contract | ||
| adapter_build_args: "0x83F20F44975D03b1b09e64809B757c47f942BEeA,0x6B175474E89094C44Da98b954EedeAC495271d0F" | ||
| # Whether or not the testing script should skip checking balances of the protocol components. | ||
| # If set to `true` please always add a reason why it's skipped. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please provide a reason why it's skipped
| - "0x6B175474E89094C44Da98b954EedeAC495271d0F" # dai | ||
| - "0x83F20F44975D03b1b09e64809B757c47f942BEeA" # sDai | ||
| creation_tx: "0xa2f51048265f2fe9ffaf69b94cb5a2a4113be49bdecd2040d530dd6f68facc42" | ||
| skip_simulation: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing swap simulation tests
| // Ethereum | ||
| match vault_address { | ||
| // sDai | ||
| hex!("83F20F44975D03b1b09e64809B757c47f942BEeA") => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hardcoded address - it won't work on other chains. I think you can get this value from the constructor?
|
|
||
| let tx_protocol_components = deployment_tx | ||
| .map(|tx| { | ||
| let protocol_component = ProtocolComponent::at_contract(&vault_address, &tx.into()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're missing the tracking of contracts where state is relevant for simulation. From sDAI's code, looks like pot contract (https://etherscan.io/address/0x197E90f9FAD81970bA7976f33CbD77088E5D7cf7#code) is necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could even add DAI and pot addresses from params - as we
expect to be only one sDAI per-chain.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're missing the tracking of contracts where state is relevant for simulation. From sDAI's code, looks like
potcontract (https://etherscan.io/address/0x197E90f9FAD81970bA7976f33CbD77088E5D7cf7#code) is necessary.
Hey @tvinagre could you please be more specific regarding why potis relevant for the simulation since it does not hold balance?
| component_id: address_hex.as_bytes().to_vec(), | ||
| }, | ||
| ]); | ||
| substreams::log::debug!( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pls remove logs before final version
|
Please also rebase from |
No description provided.