-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 100
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
base: more-migrating-params
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
LGTM; will let someone on protocols do final approvals
Had that question on the new batch permit and wanted to verify
sdks/universal-router-sdk/test/forge/MigratorCallParameters.t.sol
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
options.v4AddLiquidityOptions.batchPermit.permitBatch.spender == universalRouterAddress, | ||
'INVALID_SPENDER' | ||
) | ||
planner.addCommand(CommandType.PERMIT2_PERMIT_BATCH, [ |
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.
its only ever going to be 1 currency i think? so using batch
is unnecessary?
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.
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 { |
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.
do we need tests for unwrapping/wrapping at all?
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. |
PR Scope
Please title your PR according to the following types and scopes following conventional commits:
fix(SDK name):
will trigger a patch versionchore(<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 versionfeat(breaking):
will trigger a major version for a breaking changeDescription
[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]