Skip to content

Add AdminCap-driven AMM config update flow#62

Closed
CoveMB wants to merge 6 commits intosplit/25-ammconfig-modulefrom
split/26-admincap-module
Closed

Add AdminCap-driven AMM config update flow#62
CoveMB wants to merge 6 commits intosplit/25-ammconfig-modulefrom
split/26-admincap-module

Conversation

@CoveMB
Copy link
Collaborator

@CoveMB CoveMB commented Feb 20, 2026

Fixes #26

Summary

Adds the AdminCap-managed AMM update script flow.

Scope

  • Owner amm-update script
  • Integration test covering update execution and updated snapshot checks

Notes

Admin capability resolution primitives are already available from the AMM domain layer in the prior stack PR.

@CoveMB CoveMB requested a review from qalisander February 21, 2026 23:16
@bidzyyys bidzyyys linked an issue Mar 9, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
@bidzyyys
Copy link
Contributor

bidzyyys commented Mar 9, 2026

Blocked by #61

@bidzyyys bidzyyys marked this pull request as draft March 9, 2026 15:22
@qalisander qalisander changed the base branch from split/25-ammconfig-module to main March 11, 2026 07:33
@bidzyyys bidzyyys changed the base branch from main to split/25-ammconfig-module March 11, 2026 08:25
Copy link
Contributor

@bidzyyys bidzyyys left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That PR does not introduce any smart contract logic, but based on GH issue it should. @CoveMB please correct me if I am wrong.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We do not want to use "dummy" contracts for testing. We should use the existing ones.

expect(output.ammConfigId).toBe(ammConfigId)
expect(output.adminCapId).toBe(adminCapId)
expect(output.ammConfig.configId).toBe(ammConfigId)
expect(output.ammConfig.baseSpreadBps).toBe("55")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@CoveMB, in general when you set some value in test, like baseSpreadBps: "55", and then you perform a check against that updated value expect(output.ammConfig.baseSpreadBps).toBe("55") ; it is much easier to assign at first that value to some variable and use the variable. It is much better for maintenance and refactoring.

@bidzyyys
Copy link
Contributor

Replaced with #81.

@bidzyyys bidzyyys closed this Mar 11, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Module for AdminCap management

2 participants