additional amm flags are introduced #2667
Conversation
| tfOneAssetWithdrawAll = 0x00040000, | ||
| tfTwoAssetIfEmpty = 0x00800000, | ||
| tfWithdrawSubTx = tfLPToken | | ||
| tfSingleAsset | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can I not use existing flags to designate new flags? I get the following lint error ://
error Explicit enum value must only be a literal value (string, number, boolean, etc)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There shouldn't be any masks here - the enum should just be the flags.
I would use https://xrpl.org/docs/references/protocol/transactions/types/ammdeposit/#ammdeposit-flags as your source of truth instead of rippled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the dev's job to | the flags together, not ours. rippled reuses a lot of these combinations, which is why that code has some combinations. They aren't independent flags, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok thanks, fixed it
|
This should probably be released before AMM goes live tomorrow |
Co-authored-by: Mayukha Vadari <[email protected]>
* additional amm flags are introduced Co-authored-by: Mayukha Vadari <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Mayukha Vadari <[email protected]>
* additional amm flags are introduced Co-authored-by: Mayukha Vadari <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Mayukha Vadari <[email protected]>
High Level Overview of Change
Fix #2666
This PR introduces additional flags used in the AMM-related transactions. I'm using these lines of code as the source of truth: https:/XRPLF/rippled/blob/69143d71f8973e33b701d7becc19da2ad6a68b68/src/ripple/protocol/TxFlags.h#L166
Context of Change
This change brings forth certain AMMFlags into the xrpl-js client library.
Type of Change
Did you update HISTORY.md?
Do I need to update HISTORY file? this change implements what was promised in the AMM-transaction documentation.
Test Plan
I'm not familiar with the AMM-transactions to write unit tests for all these flags. Please let me know if you have any ideas.