XCM builder pattern improvement - Accept impl Into<T> instead of just T
#3708
Conversation
This file contains 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
gupnik
reviewed
Mar 15, 2024
gupnik
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add the builder pattern here as well? https://paritytech.github.io/xcm-docs/
bkchr
approved these changes
Apr 3, 2024
|
bot fmt |
acatangiu
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2024
|
just curious, @franciscoaguirre did you check whether or not this change impact the binary size ? |
Definitely! I'm planning on moving those docs to rust docs to get them closer to the actual code and then I'll use the builder pattern there |
No. Is it because of the |
|
Yeah probably not a concern but monomorphization might generate some extra code |
Ank4n
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2024
…st `T` (#3708) 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 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: command-bot <> Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
dharjeezy
pushed a commit
to dharjeezy/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2024
…st `T` (paritytech#3708) 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 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: command-bot <> Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
This was referenced Jun 5, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
The XCM builder pattern lets you build xcms like so:
All the
.into()become quite annoying to have to write.I accepted
impl Into<T>instead ofTin the generated methods from the macro.Now the previous example can be simplified as follows: