Skip to content
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

feat(ur-sdk): migrating out of range -> in range or out of range -> opposite side out of range #277

Open
wants to merge 18 commits into
base: more-migrating-params
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dianakocsis
Copy link
Contributor

PR Scope

Please title your PR according to the following types and scopes following conventional commits:

  • fix(SDK name): will trigger a patch version
  • chore(<type>): will not trigger any release and should be used for internal repo changes
  • <type>(public): will trigger a patch version for non-code changes (e.g. README changes)
  • feat(SDK name): will trigger a minor version
  • feat(breaking): will trigger a major version for a breaking change

Description

[Summary of the change, motivation, and context]

How Has This Been Tested?

[e.g. Manually, E2E tests, unit tests, Storybook]

Are there any breaking changes?

[e.g. Type definitions, API definitions]

If there are breaking changes, please ensure you bump the major version Bump the major version (by using the title feat(breaking): ...), post a notice in #eng-sdks, and explicitly notify all Uniswap Labs consumers of the SDK.

(Optional) Feedback Focus

[Specific parts of this PR you'd like feedback on, or that reviewers should pay closer attention to]

(Optional) Follow Ups

[Things that weren't addressed in this PR, ways you plan to build on this work, or other ways this work could be extended]

@dianakocsis dianakocsis requested review from a team as code owners January 28, 2025 19:02
Copy link
Contributor

@Ayoakala Ayoakala left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM; will let someone on protocols do final approvals

Had that question on the new batch permit and wanted to verify

@dianakocsis dianakocsis changed the title feat(ur-sdk): migrating out of range feat(ur-sdk): migrating out of range -> in range or out of range -> opposite side out of range Feb 7, 2025
options.v4AddLiquidityOptions.batchPermit.permitBatch.spender == universalRouterAddress,
'INVALID_SPENDER'
)
planner.addCommand(CommandType.PERMIT2_PERMIT_BATCH, [
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

its only ever going to be 1 currency i think? so using batch is unnecessary?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

permitBatch is already a param of v4AddLiquidityOptions so i figured i would just keep it instead of adding another one?

assertEq(v4PositionManager.balanceOf(RECIPIENT), 1, "V4 NOT MINTED");
}

function test_migrate_v3OutOfRangeIn1_v4OutOfRangeIn1() public {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we need tests for unwrapping/wrapping at all?

@dianakocsis dianakocsis requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2025 17:22
@dianakocsis dianakocsis changed the base branch from main to more-migrating-params February 21, 2025 17:22
@graphite-app graphite-app bot requested a review from a team February 21, 2025 17:22
Copy link

graphite-app bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Graphite Automations

"Request reviewers once CI passes on sdks monorepo" took an action on this PR • (02/21/25)

2 reviewers were added and 1 assignee was added to this PR based on Siyu Jiang (See-You John)'s automation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants