On extrinsics/call, ensure local XCM execution is complete/successful.
Otherwise, fail the extrinsic so that state changes don't get committed
to the db.
Added regression tests that fail without the fix.
fixes#2237
---------
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <adrian@parity.io>
## Motivation
`pallet-xcm` is the main user-facing interface for XCM functionality,
including assets manipulation functions like `teleportAssets()` and
`reserve_transfer_assets()` calls.
While `teleportAsset()` works both ways, `reserve_transfer_assets()`
works only for sending reserve-based assets to a remote destination and
beneficiary when the reserve is the _local chain_.
## Solution
This PR enhances `pallet_xcm::(limited_)reserve_withdraw_assets` to
support transfers when reserves are other chains.
This will allow complete, **bi-directional** reserve-based asset
transfers user stories using `pallet-xcm`.
Enables following scenarios:
- transferring assets with local reserve (was previously supported iff
asset used as fee also had local reserve - now it works in all cases),
- transferring assets with reserve on destination,
- transferring assets with reserve on remote/third-party chain (iff
assets and fees have same remote reserve),
- transferring assets with reserve different than the reserve of the
asset to be used as fees - meaning can be used to transfer random asset
with local/dest reserve while using DOT for fees on all involved chains,
even if DOT local/dest reserve doesn't match asset reserve,
- transferring assets with any type of local/dest reserve while using
fees which can be teleported between involved chains.
All of the above is done by pallet inner logic without the user having
to specify which scenario/reserves/teleports/etc. The correct scenario
and corresponding XCM programs are identified, and respectively, built
automatically based on runtime configuration of trusted teleporters and
trusted reserves.
#### Current limitations:
- while `fees` and "non-fee" `assets` CAN have different reserves (or
fees CAN be teleported), the remaining "non-fee" `assets` CANNOT, among
themselves, have different reserve locations (this is also implicitly
enforced by `MAX_ASSETS_FOR_TRANSFER=2`, but this can be safely
increased in the future).
- `fees` and "non-fee" `assets` CANNOT have **different remote**
reserves (this could also be supported in the future, but adds even more
complexity while possibly not being worth it - we'll see what the future
holds).
Fixes https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/1584
Fixes https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/2055
---------
Co-authored-by: Francisco Aguirre <franciscoaguirreperez@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Branislav Kontur <bkontur@gmail.com>
Xiliang Chen