use relaychain asset as fee by zqhxuyuan · Pull Request #700 · open-web3-stack/open-runtime-module-library

zqhxuyuan · 2022-02-22T01:17:58Z

checkout context infomation on: #698

for not breaking current semantic(don't allow different reserve), I use another disptach call instead mixed in do_transfer_multiassets. (i.e. may be need another paramether allow_different_reserve to implemented.)

the transfer_using_relaychain_as_fee only used for parachain(A) send token to sibling parachain(B), and use relaychain token(R) as fee. thus, the reserve location is decided by sibling asset instead of fee asset.

Edit:
for the case of transfer custom asset(RMRK) from Karura to Statemine, we current use two xcm implementation:

first one send to relaychain and route to Statemine(Karura-[KSM]-Statemine NonReserve case), transfer user's fee to parachain_2000 sovereign account on Statemine.
second one direct send to Statemine(Karura-[KSM,RMRK]-Statemine, ToReserve case)

~~we also has the case of transfer RMRK from Karura to Bifrost. this case also need use KSM as fee too.~~

acala statemine tests: AcalaNetwork/Acala#1712

codecov-commenter · 2022-02-22T05:57:17Z

Codecov Report

Merging #700 (cadcc9f) into master (aac79b3) will increase coverage by 0.40%.
The diff coverage is 83.40%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #700      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   74.99%   75.39%   +0.40%     
==========================================
  Files          83       83              
  Lines        7266     7438     +172     
==========================================
+ Hits         5449     5608     +159     
- Misses       1817     1830      +13

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
xtokens/src/mock/mod.rs	`89.28% <50.00%> (-3.03%)`	⬇️
xtokens/src/lib.rs	`63.93% <62.76%> (+2.60%)`	⬆️
xtokens/src/mock/para.rs	`75.75% <100.00%> (+2.42%)`	⬆️
xtokens/src/tests.rs	`99.35% <100.00%> (+0.14%)`	⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update aac79b3...cadcc9f. Read the comment docs.

shaunxw

I would recommend to update transfer_with_fee impl instead of adding a new dispatchable call.

The new transfer_using_relaychain_as_fee is basically the same with do_transfer_multiassets, but it doesn't require fee and other assets share the same reserve, plus it use non-fee assets as reserve.

Updating do_transfer_multiassets and make it

Only ensure non-fee assets share the same reserve location.
Refer to non-fee assets for reserve location.

should work. As it only extends use cases of it with less limitations, it's not a breaking change for transfer_with_fee.

xtokens/src/lib.rs

xtokens/src/mock/para.rs

zqhxuyuan · 2022-02-23T01:47:19Z

Only ensure non-fee assets share the same reserve location.
Refer to non-fee assets for reserve location.

That make sense, but I think change transfer_with_fee will break existing case, i.e.

open-runtime-module-library/xtokens/src/tests.rs

Lines 310 to 315 in f8f6f82

    
           ParaA::execute_with(|| { 
        
           	assert_ok!(ParaXTokens::transfer_with_fee( 
        
           		Some(ALICE).into(), 
        
           		CurrencyId::B, 
        
           		450, 
        
           		50,

transfer_with_fee only support one asset and use that asset as fee. If we want to use relaychain asset as fee and transfer another asset, I think we need to change transfer_multiasset_with_fee or transfer_multicurrencies or transfer_multiassets.

shaunxw · 2022-02-23T02:28:25Z

That make sense, but I think change transfer_with_fee will break existing case, i.e.

My bad, I mean the new updated impl which can specify fee asset type. Updating do_transfer_multiassets impl should work and won't break any existing call.

shaunxw

DistinctReserveForAssetAndFee error variant should be removed, as there is not such limitation any more.

xtokens/src/lib.rs

zqhxuyuan · 2022-02-25T06:55:33Z

I think DistinctReserveForAssetAndFee still needed, because there maybe case like [R,A,A1] which is valid, but [R,A,B] is invalid.

xtokens/src/lib.rs

This reverts commit aac79b3.

xtokens/src/lib.rs

shaunxw · 2022-03-01T22:30:42Z

xtokens/src/lib.rs

+				// destination chain, which asset is originated from sender account on sender
+				// chain. This means if user setup too much fee, the fee is not returned to
+				// user, instead deposit to sibling parachain sovereign account on dest chain.
+				// Notice: if parachain set `SelfLocation` to (0, Here), it'll be error!


This should be documented in SelfLocation definition.

move to README

shaunxw · 2022-03-01T22:31:06Z

xtokens/src/lib.rs

+				// Current not ensure xcm order delivery. if second xcm is executed before first
+				// xcm, then second xcm may failed because of sibling parachain account don't
+				// have enough fee to withdraw. we can pre-fund some amount to sibling parachain
+				// sovereign account to fix this issue. when first xcm executed later on, the
+				// sibling sovereign parachain account is deposit. and next transaction will
+				// succeed even though second xcm is executed before first xcm if user fee is
+				// less than parachain sovereign account balance.


Dispatchable calls docstring or pallet readme should include these usage notes.

move to README

xtokens/src/lib.rs

shaunxw · 2022-03-01T22:35:39Z

xtokens/src/lib.rs

+		}
+
+		/// Send xcm with given assets and fee to dest or reserve chain.
+		fn send_xcm(


need a better naming

rename to execute_and_send_reserve_kind_xcm

xtokens/src/lib.rs

shaunxw · 2022-03-01T22:46:38Z

xtokens/src/lib.rs

 }
+
+fn subtract_fee(asset: &MultiAsset, amount: u128) -> MultiAsset {
+	let final_amount = fungible_amount(asset).checked_sub(amount).expect("fee too low; qed");


There is no fee_amount >= min_xcm_fee check. This could panic no?

we checked before subtract, so it's ok here I think

// min xcm fee should less than user fee let fee_to_dest: MultiAsset = (fee.id.clone(), min_xcm_fee).into(); ensure!(fee_to_dest < fee, Error::<T>::InvalidAsset);

This reverts commit dba578f.

* origin/master: use relaychain asset as fee (#700) Polkadot v0.9.17 (#705) XTokens refactor (#706) Add a test for cliff vesting (#702) Girazoki fix index in transfer multicurrencies (#696)

zqhxuyuan added 2 commits February 21, 2022 18:02

support relaychain as fee

69165e6

add weight

30cce9d

zqhxuyuan requested review from shaunxw and xlc February 22, 2022 05:16

zqhxuyuan added 2 commits February 22, 2022 13:17

clean and comment

d14ccf1

clean

9344a77

zqhxuyuan marked this pull request as ready for review February 22, 2022 05:31

zqhxuyuan mentioned this pull request Feb 22, 2022

Statemine integration test AcalaNetwork/Acala#1712

Merged

shaunxw reviewed Feb 22, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xtokens/src/mock/para.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zqhxuyuan added 4 commits February 23, 2022 14:39

use non fee asset as reserve

67ed76e

update

9af1b35

clippy

616be9f

update weight

97e0f78

shaunxw reviewed Feb 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zqhxuyuan added 2 commits February 24, 2022 15:59

too many fee

f9cbfed

two xcm and split fee

bd48f89

zqhxuyuan added 7 commits February 25, 2022 15:15

clean

281bef4

fix tests

6877a4d

more test

065e50b

clippy

dbfc6e6

fmt

c29e8cd

remove FeeNotEnough

34241d2

clean

67d76e6

xlc reviewed Feb 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xlc reviewed Feb 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

add parachain min fee setting

a74cb4a

merge master

85fb142

xlc reviewed Feb 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

xlc reviewed Feb 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zqhxuyuan added 2 commits February 28, 2022 18:09

more test and some limitation

085806b

some notes

69acc52

zqhxuyuan changed the title ~~Different fee reserve~~ use relaychain asset as fee to transfer asset back to Statemine Feb 28, 2022

zqhxuyuan added 3 commits February 28, 2022 20:24

fmt

662981c

Revert "Polkadot v0.9.17 (#705)"

dba578f

This reverts commit aac79b3.

update comments

83e0304

zqhxuyuan changed the title ~~use relaychain asset as fee to transfer asset back to Statemine~~ use relaychain asset as fee Mar 1, 2022

zqhxuyuan commented Mar 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

xtokens/src/lib.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

shaunxw reviewed Mar 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

zqhxuyuan added 3 commits March 2, 2022 11:37

Revert "Revert "Polkadot v0.9.17 (#705)""

cf3d8aa

This reverts commit dba578f.

fix

a2d1de5

update README and add FeeNotEnough Error

cadcc9f

shaunxw approved these changes Mar 3, 2022

View reviewed changes

shaunxw merged commit 0a5a2df into master Mar 3, 2022

shaunxw deleted the different_fee_reserve branch March 3, 2022 09:01

ghost mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2022

Asset-manager for foreign xcm related assets parallel-finance/parallel#1450

Merged

12 tasks

xlc mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2022

support using KSM as fee(cases: transfer back asset to Statemine) #698

Closed

Conversation

zqhxuyuan commented Feb 22, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Feb 22, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

shaunxw left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zqhxuyuan commented Feb 23, 2022

Uh oh!

shaunxw commented Feb 23, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shaunxw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zqhxuyuan commented Feb 25, 2022

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shaunxw Mar 1, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zqhxuyuan Mar 3, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shaunxw Mar 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zqhxuyuan Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shaunxw Mar 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zqhxuyuan Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shaunxw Mar 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zqhxuyuan Mar 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

zqhxuyuan commented Feb 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Feb 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading

shaunxw left a comment •

edited

Loading

shaunxw commented Feb 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading

shaunxw Mar 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading