-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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
Update liquidity data naming #1559
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not using maxDebt instead of liquidationThreshold ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I liked the "value" suffix that we used on Compound, because:
- it allows to have the same denomination for both Compound and Aave
- it is more natural to me. I believe you can say "my debt value is ..." but not "my debt USD is ...", it should be "my debt in USD is ..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like it. There may be minor arguments against some of this, but as it stands it removes ambiguity about what the variables are.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Duplicate approve sorry. Github was acting up.
One thing to keep in mind is that we should NOT use inETH naming in V3 to remain chain agnostic. AAVE has also discussed not using ETH as the quote currency at some points, so it's important to have a more generic name ready for if that happens. |
Should we merge it since we already merged the change with |
The PR for So the decision on whether we should merge it or not should not depend on whether we've previously merged "the change with I still think this PR adds much clarity |
Ok wanted to make sure. Can you fix the conflicts, please? i guess we'll be able to merge it |
…racts into refactor/liquidity-data
I added a small change for coherence |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's changing the bytecode right?
Oh, surprising |
Pull Request
Issue(s) fixed
This is a naming suggestion, which I find clearer (at least)