Minor surplus fixes

[aomafarag]

Closes #450.

Checklist:

• issue number linked above after pound (#)
  • replace "Closes " with "Contributes to" or other if this PR does not close the issue
• issue checkboxes are all addressed
• manually checked my feature / not applicable
• wrote tests / not applicable
• attached screenshots / not applicable

Issues to be fixed:

• Fix uniswap price fetching when there is no bids
• Set nextMinimumBid to make sense (eg a uniswap price * gap to reach 1k net profit)
• SurplusAuctionBidTransactionTable "state" should display state, not just date
• SurplusAuctionBidTransactionTable end state should count down, but count up (ie Ended 2s ago, 3s ago, etc. First guess: can be caused by invalid determination of the earliestEndDate)

[aomafarag]

I discovered that SurplusAuction was used as the prop instead of SurplusAuctionTransaction. Changing it fixed the Price on UniSwap not fetching issue, and the nextMinimumBid being initially 0 one.

[valiafetisov]

Set nextMinimumBid to make sense (eg a uniswap price * gap to reach 1k net profit)

Why was it not addressed in this PR? I understand that it's not the UI problem, but you basically need to fix nextMinimumBid in the core to set a valid default instead of 0

[aomafarag]

Set nextMinimumBid to make sense (eg a uniswap price * gap to reach 1k net profit)

Why was it not addressed in this PR? I understand that it's not the UI problem, but you basically need to fix nextMinimumBid in the core to set a valid default instead of 0

In the core it's set as bidAmountMKR * increaseCoefficient. Could the increaseCoefficient be initially 0?

[valiafetisov]

Initially, there is no bidAmountMKR as there is no bids yet. But you only need to check if nextMinimumBid is zero to set it to another default, since 0 is not a valid bid amount

[aomafarag]

... (eg a uniswap price * gap to reach 1k net profit)

I adjusted the code with this suggestion

[LukSteib]

• For me uniswap price still not fetched properly (see 1 below)

1

[aomafarag]

OK, so after hours of digging, here's where I think the problem is: the simulation is not enriching newly created surplus auctions. The thing is, the Price on Uniswap is not fetched separately from the auction, but by the marketUnitPrice property of the auction, which is initialized when the auction is enriched. So, the fact that a forked block of auctions displays the marketUnitPrice correctly and the newly created auction doesn't would be due to the newly created auction not being enriched properly.

[valiafetisov]

Not sure I fully understand without a link to the source code where the problem is. What is the proposed solution?

[aomafarag]

There are two scenarios of the simulation:

1. Create a new surplus auction
2. Fork a block of surplus auctions

Price on Uniswap is not fetched only in the first case (the issue Lukas refers to). This is because the price is fetched with the marketUnitPrice property of the SurplusAuctionEnriched interface. So, the reason it doesn't show in the first simulation case would be that the auctions are not enriched in that first case, not due to the frontend not fetching it properly.

[valiafetisov]

the auctions are not enriched in that first case

Ok, the problem is reproduced. Do you want to investigate why is it not enriched in this case and propose a solution?

[aomafarag]

I checked the two simulation cases for the debt auctions, and they work fine. The difference to the surplus cases seems to be that debt auctions have a fixed bid. Surplus auctions, however, start with no bids, and their calculation of marketUnitPrice relies on bidAmountMKR. Since there are no bids, that calculation gives off NaN.

I guess such a behavior is acceptable, since we can't calculate a unit price if we have no units. @valiafetisov, what do you think?

[valiafetisov]

Since we want to show "unit price" and not the total price for the whole collateral, we can (only in case when there is no bids yet) compute marketUnitPrice using arbitrary number, eg 1. The price will be different in case the bid amount will be significantly bigger, but I think it's better to show at least some kind of unit price as a reference than no unit price at all. Since then the user will still need to go to external platform to get it. Do you agree, @LukSteib?

[aomafarag]

... we can (only in case when there is no bids yet) compute marketUnitPrice using arbitrary number, eg 1

That's what I went for in the latest commit

[LukSteib]

Do you agree, @LukSteib

Agree to the propsal by @valiafetisov. Better to use arbitrary number (in this case 1) than none.