[Deposit] Update UI to show pending assets #1505
Conversation
into issue-1496/ui-pending-assets
Still WIP - currently it fails to get data of liquidity providers
Note: address$ causes the race condition. Also instead of subscribing selectedPoolAsset$, just use oRouteAsset (which is available asap)
as suggested by @thatStrangeGuyThorchain
veado
changed the title
| })) | ||
| A.map((provider): LiquidityProvider => { | ||
| const pendingRuneAmount = baseAmount(provider.pending_rune, THORCHAIN_DECIMAL) | ||
| const pendingAssetAmount = baseAmount(provider.pending_asset, assetDecimal) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just realized that such transformation to the BaseAmount is a little bit incorrect... assetDecimal is not always the same as selectedPoolAsset's decimal in general.
for the future i believe we need to pass pending amounts as strings directly and transform to the BaseAmount only "on demand" (at the view level when we know assets' decimals...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will be done with another PR - see #1512
| @@ -84,16 +84,19 @@ export type GetLiquidityProvidersParams = { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| export type GetLiquidityProviderParams = GetLiquidityProvidersParams & { | |||
| runeAddress: O.Option<Address> | |||
| assetAddress: O.Option<Address> | |||
| runeAddress: Address | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would keep runeAddress: O.Option<Address>:
assetAddressis always required for bothsym/asymprovidersruneAddressis optional to detect if we want to getsym/asymprovider.
i know we now "ignore" all asym-related stuff but if this is a brand-new stuff we should be "aimed" to the future stuff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will be done with another PR - see #1512
There was a problem hiding this comment.
runeAddress is optional to detect if we want to get sym/asym provider.
That's not correct, but as follow: "if member is assym - they will only have either rune_address or asset_address in their member details." (see https://thorchain.slack.com/archives/C012CLYR1DG/p1612347969232600?thread_ts=1612288793.231200&cid=C012CLYR1DG). We will check always both addresses then.
Check for pending asset is for sym. deposit needed only. If an asym. deposit might fail, there won't be a pending asset.
| const [liquidityProvider] = useObservableState<LiquidityProviderRD>(() => { | ||
| return Rx.combineLatest([ | ||
| network$, | ||
| // We should look for THORChain's wallet at the response of liqudity_providers endpoint | ||
| address$, | ||
| addressByChain$(THORChain), | ||
| assetWithDecimalLD | ||
| ]).pipe( | ||
| RxOp.switchMap(([network, oAssetAddress, oRuneAddress, assetWithDecimalRD]) => { | ||
| return FP.pipe( | ||
| sequenceTOption(oRuneAddress, oAssetAddress, RD.toOption(assetWithDecimalRD)), | ||
| O.fold( | ||
| (): LiquidityProviderLD => Rx.of(RD.initial), | ||
| ([runeAddress, assetAddress, assetWithDecimal]) => | ||
| getLiquidityProvider({ assetWithDecimal, network, runeAddress, assetAddress }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would move this data getter directly inside of SymDepositView. with optional runeAddress at the getLiquidityProvider we can easily split this logic between 2 views without passing-down liquidityProvider through few levels:
SymDepositView:getLiquidityProvider({ assetWithDecimal: ..., network: ..., runeAddress: O.some(Address), assetAddress: Address })AsymDepositView:getLiquidityProvider({ assetWithDecimal: ..., network: ..., runeAddress: O.none, assetAddress: Address })
what do you think ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will be done with another PR - see #1512
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going to skip this for same reason mentioned in #1505 (comment)
part 2 will be following tomorrow
|
Merging now to have it in next release... All open suggestion will be done with another PR - see #1512 |
Peek.2021-06-07.18-38.mp4
Closes #1496