-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 667
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
allow treasury to do reserve asset transfers #1447
allow treasury to do reserve asset transfers #1447
Conversation
I don't get why you opened this here. The runtimes will be released from the fellowship repo. You also wanted to create a chopsticks test? TLDR: Please open against the fellowship repo. |
Sorry, I was under the impression the fellowship repo is read-only till it gets migrated over. My mistake. I'll make the changes in that repo and close this pr |
reopening after discussion with Basti because this pr requires xcm changes that are not part of the fellowship repo currently The test currently ensures we can do a reserve asset transfer from the relay chain to a parachain (Penpal) We can remove all the changes to the runtime itself(and make the runtime changes in the fellowship repo) and only keep the xcm changes But that would mean we have to remove the test as we need the Treasury Origin enabled so we can do a reserve asset transfer. Otherwise, the test will fail with Let me know what is best to do :) |
If I understand correctly, you'll leave the change to xcm-builder here, and change the runtimes in the runtimes repo? |
Looks like you're mainly adding a means of converting Treasurer Frame- Presumably you'll be wanting to communicate this XCM between two non-local XCM endpoints, in which case the local Plurality on the source endpoint will be a remote Plurality on the remote endpoint. In this case, your conversion to Treasury account ID won't work. |
Hey Gav, if I understand your concern, you are saying that this will only work from relay to para. We can resolve that by adding another match on
Alternatively, if the remote plurality looks different we can rename the struct to Would that be acceptable? |
Hey Cisco, thanks for the tip. Is there an existing test that uses MockRuntime that I should use to keep things consistent Also I am assuming that if we want to isolate a test for only the xcm changes then all we need to do is test the location conversion right? because the "reserve_asset_transfer" is actually part of the runtime and can be included in a test there? |
is there anything else that needs changing in this pr? |
Hi Gav, sorry I think I misunderstood you but _think) I understand you now. Let's assume Chain A is sending some funds from its treasury to Chain B. With the current conversion, Chain B will incorrectly assume the funds are coming from its own treasury. The same issue occurs if going from Relay to Chain B Speaking to @franciscoaguirre, he kindly advised me to use |
Co-authored-by: Francisco Aguirre <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
please, revert also those imports from cumulus/parachains/integration-tests/emulated/common/src/constants.rs
reverted |
This pr resolves #1428.
Added only to Kusama for now
I did raise it here and we discussed creating a chopsticks test to run an end-to-end test
however, to do that I will need a build agent/custom runner that is powerful enough to run the build
I will be doing that separately as I still think having chopsticks test your runtime with each commit will be very powerful and extremely useful for the ecosystem
For now I have used XCM simulator and replicated what the other reserve tests do