-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
fix: rounding in the protocol's favor #468
Merged
Merged
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c36855d
fix: rounding in the protocol's favour
0xJabberwock 9bfa105
refactor: copy memory array in Yul
0xJabberwock 2771ba7
refactor: lint Yul
0xJabberwock 78927e4
refactor: clearer variable names and comments
0xJabberwock 8cc432e
refactor: revert non-trivial gas optimizations
0xJabberwock 74d50f8
chore: merge branch 'main'
0xJabberwock 75ed2fd
refactor: delete assembly TODO
0xJabberwock 09d7635
refactor: comment rounding conflict of interests
0xJabberwock bca61a8
chore: merge branch 'main'
0xJabberwock File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion
2
pkg/vault/.forge-snapshots/vaultRemoveLiquiditySingleTokenExactOut.snap
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1 +1 @@ | ||
132100 | ||
132098 |
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
During
computeRemoveLiquiditySingleTokenExactIn
, it turns out that, in order for thetaxableAmount
to be as large as possible, we would wantnewBalanceBeforeTax
to be rounded up andnewBalance
to be rounded down.Nevertheless,
newBalance
was previously subtracted fromcurrentBalances[tokenOutIndex]
so as to computeamountOut
; since we'd want the latter to be as low as possible,newBalance
had been rounded up initially.In consequence, a conflict of interests arises regarding the rounding of
newBalance
.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.
I think it's fine.
Taxable balance is not as important as amounts out to withdraw.
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.
Might be good to document this rounding conflict and priority in rounding amountOut over
taxableAmount
so we need not repeat thinking through this again :)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.
Yes, we should always document the reason for the rounding: see #468 (comment)