pezkuwichain/pezkuwi-subxt
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/pezkuwichain/pezkuwi-subxt.git synced 2026-04-27 03:27:58 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

XCM builder pattern improvement - Accept impl Into<T> instead of just T (#3708)

Browse Source 
The XCM builder pattern lets you build xcms like so:

```rust
let xcm = Xcm::builder()
    .withdraw_asset((Parent, 100u128).into())
    .buy_execution((Parent, 1u128).into())
    .deposit_asset(All.into(), AccountId32 { id: [0u8; 32], network: None }.into())
    .build();
```

All the `.into()` become quite annoying to have to write.
I accepted `impl Into<T>` instead of `T` in the generated methods from
the macro.
Now the previous example can be simplified as follows:

```rust
let xcm = Xcm::builder()
    .withdraw_asset((Parent, 100u128))
    .buy_execution((Parent, 1u128))
    .deposit_asset(All, [0u8; 32])
    .build();
```

---------

Co-authored-by: Bastian Köcher <git@kchr.de>
Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
This commit is contained in:
Francisco Aguirre
2024-04-04 14:40:21 +02:00
committed by GitHub
parent bcb4d137c9
commit c130ea9939
5 changed files with 59 additions and 16 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
polkadot/xcm/procedural/tests/builder_pattern.rs
+7 -7
View File
@@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ use xcm::latest::prelude::*;
#[test]
fn builder_pattern_works() {
let asset: Asset = (Here, 100u128).into();
let beneficiary: Location = AccountId32 { id: [0u8; 32], network: None }.into();
let beneficiary: Location = [0u8; 32].into();
let message: Xcm<()> = Xcm::builder()
.receive_teleported_asset(asset.clone().into())
.receive_teleported_asset(asset.clone())
.buy_execution(asset.clone(), Unlimited)
.deposit_asset(asset.clone().into(), beneficiary.clone())
.deposit_asset(asset.clone(), beneficiary.clone())
.build();
assert_eq!(
message,
@@ -53,8 +53,8 @@ fn default_builder_requires_buy_execution() {
// To be able to do that, we need to use the explicitly unpaid variant
let message: Xcm<()> = Xcm::builder_unpaid()
.unpaid_execution(Unlimited, None)
.withdraw_asset(asset.clone().into())
.deposit_asset(asset.clone().into(), beneficiary.clone())
.withdraw_asset(asset.clone())
.deposit_asset(asset.clone(), beneficiary.clone())
.build(); // This works
assert_eq!(
message,
@@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ fn default_builder_requires_buy_execution() {
// The other option doesn't have any limits whatsoever, so it should
// only be used when you really know what you're doing.
let message: Xcm<()> = Xcm::builder_unsafe()
.withdraw_asset(asset.clone().into())
.deposit_asset(asset.clone().into(), beneficiary.clone())
.withdraw_asset(asset.clone())
.deposit_asset(asset.clone(), beneficiary.clone())
.build();
assert_eq!(
message,