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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Remove user fee #2586
Remove user fee #2586
Changes from all commits
3792fc7
66e3e78
9dbb2ac
bf6e9b9
bbeb2cd
6aff741
6d10d60
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Is there anything blocking #2543 ? If not could we simply implement this now to combine the cleanups (I'm not sure there will be time scheduled for the follow up cleanup)
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.
Started working on it here: #2590
Do you think #2543 should block merging this PR?
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.
How confident are we that this breaking change is not going to shoot us in the foot? I think it would be ok to leave this value on the API level but simply always set it to 0 in code (and document that it's deprecated and always 0 in the API spec). For our internal models (domain, etc), we would want to remove this field however.
The frontend team would like to re-vamp our API and I think it would be ok to defer breaking changes thereto.
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.
The mentioned field is part of the solvers API. Not sure what frontend has with it? If you got confused and referred to the
model
data struct than yes, we still want to keepfee_amount
there.Solvers API should be kept clean, this moment is good enough to make this change as any other IMO (actually, would have been better if we made this change before solvers moved to this API 😄 buy hey...)
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.
Sorry, wrong file (I wanted to comment on the one above: crates/orderbook/src/dto/order.rs), there the field is
user_fee
. Just want to make sure only our frontend depends on this field and can live without it.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.
This is a similar change we had few weeks ago with
solver_fee
: #2272 No major problems arose except shadow competition was down and alerter being down AFAIR.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.
This time I would expect only shadow to be down because alerter is not deserializing
user_fee
.