improve: define any bridge types on construction#2726
Closed
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Bennett <bennett@umaproject.org>
bmzig
requested review from
dohaki,
mrice32,
nicholaspai and
pxrl
as code owners
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Instead of defining the
anytype based on L1/L2 bridge types (as we do now), we should define it at construction time, when we have more information about the origin/destination chain ID of the bridge.This is a step in the direction of being able to have any<->any rebalancing, as we ideally will be able to tell the bridge the src/dst providers it needs to actually implement the abstract methods in
BaseBridgeAdapter.