NonReserve case support teleport instead of reserve transfer #785
Conversation
xcm-support/src/currency_adapter.rs
Outdated
| @@ -145,6 +145,12 @@ impl< | |||
| DepositFailureHandler, | |||
| > | |||
| { | |||
| fn check_in(_origin: &MultiLocation, _what: &MultiAsset) {} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to align at polkadot CurrencyAdapter: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/blob/b0722401e1d66e6b5470995bf748467ea3fb92dd/xcm/xcm-builder/src/currency_adapter.rs#L97-L134
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we need to implement those? I don't think we will ever support teleport operation locally
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh yes, only statemine need this CurrencyAdapter implementation, but in our testcase both sender and receiver are using same MultiCurrencyAdapter. I'll try let sender use MultiCurrencyAdapter and receiver use CurrencyAdapter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If ParaC using polkadot CurrencyAdapter, there'll be execution error in testcase, So I add another MultiTeleportCurrencyAdapter inside mock, this MultiTeleportCurrencyAdapter add default check_in and can_check_in implements. It's used only in testcase.
zqhxuyuan
changed the title
| @@ -571,6 +574,7 @@ pub mod module { | |||
| &dest, | |||
| Some(T::SelfLocation::get()), | |||
| dest_weight, | |||
| true, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See the comment above, I just set true here, then this first xcm will always using teleport. Do we need use configuration setting like TrustedTeleporters to decide whether use teleport or not?
Current
fee_reserve != non_fee_reserveonly used in parachain transfer back asset back to Statemine, The first xcm we can change to teleport.