Snowbridge V2 - Unified Rewards #1
Conversation
# Conflicts: # bridges/snowbridge/pallets/inbound-queue-v2/src/mock.rs
|
Would suggest to not include the changes of inbound/outbound queue V2 and make the diff a bit easier. |
I need to base my changes on top of your work though, right? |
|
@yrong I can merge my changes into your branch. What makes it tricky is your changes are on 2 separate branches (inbound and outbound). Can we perhaps merge your changes into your v2 branch? I tried merging your 2 branches locally but had some compiler errors after the merge. |
| @@ -165,3 +159,102 @@ fn send_weth_from_asset_hub_to_ethereum_by_executing_raw_xcm() { | |||
| ); | |||
| }); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[test] | |||
| fn claim_rewards_works() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added E2E tests over here.
@claravanstaden I've rebased the previous change for So maybe we can continue the work for inbound queue based on that. |
# Conflicts: # Cargo.lock # bridges/snowbridge/pallets/inbound-queue-v2/src/lib.rs # bridges/snowbridge/pallets/outbound-queue-v2/src/lib.rs # bridges/snowbridge/primitives/core/Cargo.toml # bridges/snowbridge/primitives/core/src/lib.rs # bridges/snowbridge/primitives/router/src/inbound/mod.rs # bridges/snowbridge/primitives/router/src/inbound/v1.rs # cumulus/parachains/integration-tests/emulated/tests/bridges/bridge-hub-westend/src/tests/snowbridge_v2.rs # cumulus/parachains/runtimes/bridge-hubs/bridge-hub-westend/src/bridge_to_ethereum_config.rs
# Conflicts: # bridges/snowbridge/pallets/inbound-queue-v2/src/lib.rs # bridges/snowbridge/pallets/inbound-queue-v2/src/mock.rs # cumulus/parachains/runtimes/bridge-hubs/bridge-hub-westend/src/bridge_to_ethereum_config.rs
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| let dest = Location::new(1, [Parachain(T::AssetHubParaId::get().into())]); | ||
| let (_xcm_hash, _) = send_xcm::<T::XcmSender>(dest, xcm).map_err(Error::<T>::from)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| let (_xcm_hash, _) = send_xcm::<T::XcmSender>(dest, xcm).map_err(Error::<T>::from)?; | |
| let (_xcm_hash, xcm_delivery_fee) = send_xcm::<T::XcmSender>(dest, xcm).map_err(Error::<T>::from)?; |
The cost of delivering the message to AH needs to taken from the account of the origin. If they don't have the funds to cover the fee, then the process should be aborted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vgeddes if I take the returned delivery fee from send_xcm, the AH XCM instruction has already been sent and aborting the process would not make sense, right? So should I rather just check the relayer balance on DOT is above a sensible (configured) number?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can get delivery cost with
let (_, fee) = T::XcmSender::validate(&mut Some(dest), &mut Some(xcm))
Snowfork#142 FYI.
Just curious what's the benefit for doing this? Is there some common codes that the two modules can share? |
@yrong the bridges team requested we reuse their pallet instead of creating another relayer rewards pallet, even if we don't reuse anything right now. |
Based on yrong#3 and yrong#4.