UPdate 1.11.0

[girazoki]

TODOs:

• By changing the DealWithFees struct (we were forced to) we now are losing the treasury.Deposit event (as we are using ResolveTo instead, something that also parity does;https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/4ab078d6754147ce731523292dd1882f8a7b5775/polkadot/runtime/common/src/impls.rs#L64. We should investigate if there is a way of maintaining still that event, although it is redundant (and always has be) because the balances.Deposit event as well

• Write migrations for pallets ForeignAssetCreator, where we should migrate keys from V3 to V4.

• Include migrations to execute on xcm-executor-utils & pallet-xcm

• Fix all ts tests

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

(master)

@@                   Coverage Diff                    @@
##           master   tanssi-update-1.11.0      +/-   ##
========================================================
+ Coverage   69.32%                 69.64%   +0.32%     
  Files         224                    224              
+ Lines       39347                  39602     +255     
========================================================
+ Hits        27274                  27580     +306     
- Misses      12073                  12022      -51     

Files Changed	Coverage
/client/manual-xcm/src/lib.rs	40.43% (+0.85%)	🔼
/client/node-common/src/service.rs	48.16% (+0.63%)	🔼
/client/services-payment/src/lib.rs	74.19% (+4.49%)	🔼
/container-chains/nodes/frontier/src/command.rs	35.04% (-0.10%)	🔽
/container-chains/nodes/frontier/src/service.rs	79.50% (+1.10%)	🔼
/container-chains/nodes/simple/src/command.rs	30.96% (-0.08%)	🔽
/container-chains/nodes/simple/src/service.rs	86.43% (+2.08%)	🔼
/container-chains/runtime-templates/frontier/src/lib.rs	60.82% (+0.60%)	🔼
/container-chains/runtime-templates/frontier/src/migrations.rs	89.29% (-10.71%)	🔽
/container-chains/runtime-templates/frontier/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs	16.39% (+1.31%)	🔼
/container-chains/runtime-templates/simple/src/lib.rs	73.43% (+0.52%)	🔼
/container-chains/runtime-templates/simple/src/migrations.rs	89.29% (-10.71%)	🔽
/container-chains/runtime-templates/simple/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs	16.39% (+1.31%)	🔼
/node/src/command.rs	27.96% (-0.05%)	🔽
/node/src/service.rs	21.63% (-0.02%)	🔽
/pallets/author-noting/src/lib.rs	87.96% (+1.39%)	🔼
/pallets/services-payment/src/lib.rs	94.27% (+1.59%)	🔼
/primitives/author-noting-inherent/src/client_side.rs	87.50% (+8.01%)	🔼
/runtime/common/src/migrations.rs	86.07% (+39.95%)	🔼
/runtime/dancebox/src/lib.rs	89.17% (-0.15%)	🔽
/runtime/dancebox/src/weights/pallet_balances.rs	21.95% (-2.05%)	🔽
/runtime/dancebox/src/weights/pallet_xcm.rs	10.47% (-0.64%)	🔽
/runtime/dancebox/src/weights/xcm/mod.rs	43.17% (-1.55%)	🔽
/runtime/dancebox/src/xcm_config.rs	84.54% (+0.87%)	🔼
/runtime/dancebox/tests/integration_test.rs	99.70% (+0.01%)	🔼
/runtime/flashbox/src/lib.rs	45.52% (-0.21%)	🔽

Coverage generated Thu Jun 6 19:20:50 UTC 2024

[ParthDesai]

This seems to be typo.

[girazoki]

which part? I think it just made the line bigger and therefore fmt has decided to put it this way?

[ParthDesai]

on_unbalanceds

[girazoki]

it's a trait so if there is a typo, its in parity

[ParthDesai]

Why did we remove 4th node?

[girazoki]

Because we only need 3 validators in reality (actually it might have just work with 2)

[girazoki]

We have only dancebox + one container, so I think we can reduce it to 2. Do you want me to try this?

[ParthDesai]

Generally, I am in favor of reducing complexity of test setup. So, yeah we can reduce it to 2. But, I would suggest to do it in another PR as this PR is already too big. :)

[ParthDesai]

Why fungible assets were removed from allowed assets?

[girazoki]

I think it is because now they are only identified by their Location only

[girazoki]

Actually I think this test was wrong before, I am not sure why it was working. According to my knowledge the right type is a multilocation. @fgamundi do you know why we put a fungible there¿?

[fgamundi]

Not sure why fungible was there. The right type is indeed a MultiLocation (AssetId, really). Must have gotten confused with the actual XcmFragments in the test.
I just did some tests and seems like Polkadot.js just ignores any additional data that doesn't belong to the correct type, ignoring fun in this case

[ParthDesai]

Few questions. But apart from that looks good.