-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
chore: Migrate PoolClient from SDK #2146
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
Conversation
The PoolClient lives in the SDK but is only used by the frontend repository. Migrate it here to unburden the SDK.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Deployment failed with the following error: Learn More: https://vercel.link/3Fpeeb1 |
|
Specifically on the size of this commit (+ ~1500 Loc) vs the corresponding removal in the SDK (- ~1300 LoC), the delta is related to 80 line prettier config in frontend, vs. 120 in sdk: |
This reverts commit 049fae2.
|
Just to give greater confidence, claude put some tests together for me (see attached). There are some differences between the results, but they're quite small and might be due to caching on the production api. test-pool-endpoints.js |
The PoolClient lives in the SDK but is only used by the frontend repository. Migrate it here to unburden the SDK.
Note that this is an almost 1:1 migration of
poolfrom@across-protocol/sdk, with only minor adjustments to import statements. Claude is confident that we can trim it down even further, but I feel like that's better to do in-tree, since it's easier to reason about the behaviour being 1:1 when the migration is as simple as it can be. Happy to be overruled on that, if there are other preferences 👍Original implementation here: https://github.com/across-protocol/sdk/tree/eb68fa48ac1738976305e11bed39a8a3fe2946bf/src/pool
Follow-up cleanup here: #2147
Subsequent SDK cleanup here (...blocked by this PR): across-protocol/sdk#1313