[Assets] Call implementation for transfer_all
#4527
Conversation
|
The CI pipeline was cancelled due to failure one of the required jobs. |
|
/tip medium |
|
@kianenigma A referendum for a medium (80 DOT) tip was successfully submitted for @pandres95 (12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR on polkadot). Referendum number: 816. |
|
The referendum has appeared on Polkassembly. |
pandres95
force-pushed
the
assets-transfer-all
branch
from
0f6b81d
to
baf45ad
Compare
…fer to minimum balance instead of existential depost
prdoc/pr_4527.prdoc
Outdated
| - audience: Runtime User | ||
| description: | | ||
| This PR introduces the `transfer_all` call for `pallet-assets`. | ||
| The parameters are analog to the same call in `pallet-balances`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - audience: Runtime User | |
| description: | | |
| This PR introduces the `transfer_all` call for `pallet-assets`. | |
| The parameters are analog to the same call in `pallet-balances`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I consider it's still useful to let runtime users know about this update, as this potentially impacts users like CEXes that will come to the changelog to know about how this change works.
prdoc/pr_4527.prdoc
Outdated
| description: | | ||
| This PR introduces the `transfer_all` call for `pallet-assets`. | ||
| The parameters are analog to the same call in `pallet-balances`. | ||
| This change shouldn't break the existing APIs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
new call is new enum variant within Call enum. so this is a breaking change as for a rust crate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's rough. I guess we have to follow crates rules but it's not breaking for transaction encoding.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can change it with "This change is expected to be backwards-compatible". While technically it is true that the encoding changes, @joepetrowski is right in the sense that it doesn't change transaction encoding, as it is appending a new call at the end of the Call enum. Therefore, it is safe to say it is backwards compatible (which is the expected behaviour in these cases).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but for crates versioning I think it should follow the rust semver rules. At least that's what we have not in guidelines.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, @ggwpez also pointed out that it breaks the WeightInfo trait for anyone using this pallet. So I agree it is (unfortunately) major.
prdoc/pr_4527.prdoc
Outdated
| description: | | ||
| This PR introduces the `transfer_all` call for `pallet-assets`. | ||
| The parameters are analog to the same call in `pallet-balances`. | ||
| This change shouldn't break the existing APIs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but for crates versioning I think it should follow the rust semver rules. At least that's what we have not in guidelines.
|
This pull request has been mentioned on Polkadot Forum. There might be relevant details there: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/2024-07-16-technical-fellowship-opendev-call/9512/1 |
|
@pandres95 is this waiting for anything before merging? |
|
@joepetrowski not that I know. I thought it was waiting for an additional review / auditing process. 😅 |
6db2038
Closes paritytech#4517 Polkadot address: 12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR --------- Co-authored-by: joe petrowski <25483142+joepetrowski@users.noreply.github.com>
Closes #4517
Polkadot address: 12gMhxHw8QjEwLQvnqsmMVY1z5gFa54vND74aMUbhhwN6mJR