Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates by anmolagrawal345 · Pull Request #3153 · dydxprotocol/v4-chain

anmolagrawal345 · 2025-10-15T15:33:22Z

Changelist

Now that we use leverage in our margining calculations - we should also ensure the same collateral checks are being applied in other flows. The 2 main ones here are validating that withdrawals and incoming leverage updates respect this.

For withdrawals, we get the check for free since it lives in the core risk calculation. The test creates 2 identical positions in 2 identical subaccounts, except one has a lower leverage set, and ensure that the withdrawable balance is lower than one without leverage set.

For incoming leverage updates, we take the new configuration and run it against the same risk checks as order placement, but with empty position updates. This will use the new leverage map to check if the position passes initial collateralization checks. If it does, we update the leverage map with the new configuration.

Test Plan

Added tests in leverage_e2e_test to test both these cases.

Author/Reviewer Checklist

If this PR has changes that result in a different app state given the same prior state and transaction list, manually add the state-breaking label.
If the PR has breaking postgres changes to the indexer add the indexer-postgres-breaking label.
If this PR isn't state-breaking but has changes that modify behavior in PrepareProposal or ProcessProposal, manually add the label proposal-breaking.
If this PR is one of many that implement a specific feature, manually label them all feature:[feature-name].
If you wish to for mergify-bot to automatically create a PR to backport your change to a release branch, manually add the label backport/[branch-name].
Manually add any of the following labels: refactor, chore, bug.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Enhanced leverage update validation to verify margin requirements before applying changes, preventing operations that would violate collateralization constraints.
- Added comprehensive error handling for leverage updates that conflict with margin requirements.
Tests
- Added end-to-end tests validating withdrawal scenarios with leverage positions and margin constraints.
- Added tests verifying leverage update behavior with existing positions.

coderabbitai · 2025-10-15T15:33:38Z

Walkthrough

This PR introduces leverage management capabilities to subaccounts with margin requirement validation. It adds methods to get, set, and update leverage per perpetual, refactors margin calculations to be leverage-aware, validates that leverage updates do not violate margin requirements, and includes end-to-end tests covering withdrawal and leverage update scenarios.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Leverage Management Implementation `protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/leverage.go`	Adds SetLeverage, GetLeverage, and UpdateLeverage methods; introduces GetMinImfForPerpetual to retrieve minimum initial margin fraction; adds checkNewLeverageAgainstMarginRequirements helper to validate margin requirements when updating leverage
Margin Calculation Refactoring `protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/subaccount.go`	Refactors GetNetCollateralAndMarginRequirements into a wrapper and introduces GetNetCollateralAndMarginRequirementsWithLeverage to accept explicit leverage map; enables leverage-aware risk calculations downstream
Error Definitions `protocol/x/subaccounts/types/errors.go`	Adds ErrLeverageViolatesMarginRequirements (code 703) for margin requirement violations
Leverage E2E Tests `protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go`	Adds TestWithdrawalWithLeverage to validate withdrawal behavior with leverage constraints and TestUpdateLeverageWithExistingPosition to verify leverage update failure when positions exist and margin is insufficient

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Keeper as Subaccounts Keeper
    participant Store as State Store
    participant Calc as Margin Calculator

    User->>Keeper: UpdateLeverage(subaccountId, leverageMap)
    Keeper->>Store: GetLeverage(subaccountId)
    Store-->>Keeper: currentLeverage
    Keeper->>Keeper: Merge new leverage into current
    Keeper->>Keeper: checkNewLeverageAgainstMarginRequirements()
    
    rect rgb(240, 248, 255)
    note over Keeper,Calc: Validation Phase
    loop For each perpetual in leverageMap
        Keeper->>Calc: GetNetCollateralAndMarginRequirementsWithLeverage(emptyUpdate, mergedLeverage)
        Calc-->>Keeper: margin.Risk
        alt Initial Collateralization < 0
            Keeper-->>User: ErrLeverageViolatesMarginRequirements
        end
    end
    end
    
    rect rgb(144, 238, 144)
    note over Keeper,Store: Persistence Phase
    Keeper->>Store: SetLeverage(subaccountId, mergedLeverage)
    Store-->>Keeper: OK
    Keeper-->>User: Success
    end

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

The changes involve new leverage management APIs and refactoring of margin calculations across multiple files. While the logic is conceptually straightforward (validation before state update, wrapper pattern for backward compatibility), the changes require careful review of margin requirement checks, leverage-aware calculation flows, and test coverage for leverage constraints.

Possibly related PRs

Add Leverage To the Protocol #3079: Implements tightly related leverage features including Get/Set/UpdateLeverage methods and MsgUpdateLeverage handling with similar margin validation logic
[Performance] Remove the need to get each perpetual and price twice when checking collateralization #1681: Modifies the same GetNetCollateralAndMarginRequirements refactoring in subaccount.go to support leverage-aware calculations
Check Leverage On Order Placement #3141: Implements the complete leverage subsystem with identical Set/Get/UpdateLeverage APIs and margin requirement validation patterns

Suggested labels

state-breaking

Suggested reviewers

jusbar23
northstar456
shrenujb

Poem

🐰 A rabbit hops through leverage lands,
Where margins dance and risks expand,
With checks in place and validations tight,
Our subaccounts balance left and right,
No leverage slip without a fight! 💪

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run `@coderabbitai generate docstrings` to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The PR title "Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates" directly and specifically summarizes the main objective of the changeset. The changes add leverage validation checks for withdrawals and leverage configuration updates, which is exactly what the title conveys. The title is concise, clear, and appropriately specific without being overly verbose or generic. A developer scanning the commit history would understand that this PR introduces collateral/leverage validation for these two critical flows.
Description Check	✅ Passed	The PR description follows the required template structure and includes all mandatory sections. The Changelist provides clear rationale for the changes, explaining why leverage checks are needed for withdrawals and updates, and describes the implementation approach for each. The Test Plan section references the added E2E tests. The Author/Reviewer Checklist is complete with all template items included, though no items are checked, which is appropriate as the author is requesting reviewer guidance on labeling. The description demonstrates good understanding of the changes and their impact.

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment
Commit unit tests in branch anmol/leverage-orders

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 0

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (1)
291-293: Critical: Fix assertion to expect IMF in ppm, not leverage multiplier.

Line 293 expects uint32(5) but GetLeverage returns the Initial Margin Fraction in parts-per-million, not the leverage multiplier. For 5x leverage (CustomImfPpm: 200_000), you should expect uint32(200_000).

This issue was flagged in previous reviews and remains unfixed.

Apply this diff:
 	// Verify leverage was set immediately (ante handler sets it)
 	aliceLeverageMap, found := tApp.App.SubaccountsKeeper.GetLeverage(ctx, &constants.Alice_Num0)
 	require.True(t, found, "Alice's leverage should be set")
-	require.Equal(t, uint32(5), aliceLeverageMap[0], "Alice's leverage for perpetual 0 should be 5")
+	require.Equal(t, uint32(200_000), aliceLeverageMap[0], "Alice's CustomImfPpm for perpetual 0 should be 200_000 (5x leverage)")

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (1)
450-450: Clarify or remove arbitrary gas limit multiplication.

Line 450 multiplies the gas limit by 10 (constants.TestGasLimit * 10) without explanation. If this is necessary for Alice's withdrawal to fail correctly, add a comment explaining why; otherwise, use the standard constants.TestGasLimit as done for Bob's withdrawal.

Apply this diff if the multiplication is unnecessary:
 		testapp.MustMakeCheckTxOptions{
 			AccAddressForSigning: constants.Alice_Num0.Owner,
-			Gas:                  constants.TestGasLimit * 10,
+			Gas:                  constants.TestGasLimit,
 			FeeAmt:               constants.TestFeeCoins_5Cents,
 		},

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b4dff41 and a9608e4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📚 Learning: 2025-10-06T20:00:48.549Z

Learnt from: anmolagrawal345
PR: dydxprotocol/v4-chain#3079
File: protocol/x/clob/types/leverage.go:10-56
Timestamp: 2025-10-06T20:00:48.549Z
Learning: In the leverage update flow for protocol/x/clob, the `ValidateUpdateLeverageMsg` function performs basic validation (non-nil checks, non-zero leverage, unique IDs, valid clob pair existence), while maximum leverage validation against `GetMaxLeverageForPerpetual` is intentionally deferred to the `UpdateLeverage` keeper method.

Applied to files:

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (5)

protocol/testutil/app/app.go (5)

NewTestAppBuilder (335-350)

MustMakeCheckTxsWithClobMsg (1352-1393)

AdvanceToBlockOptions (125-152)

MustMakeCheckTxsWithSdkMsg (1397-1408)

MustMakeCheckTxOptions (100-109)

protocol/x/clob/types/expected_keepers.go (1)

SubaccountsKeeper (20-128)

protocol/x/perpetuals/lib/lib.go (1)

GetNetCollateralAndMarginRequirements (71-90)

protocol/testutil/constants/addresses.go (2)

BobAccAddress (11-11)

AliceAccAddress (10-10)

protocol/testutil/constants/assets.go (3)

Usdc (49-57)

TestGasLimit (19-19)

TestFeeCoins_5Cents (26-26)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (28)

GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-socks / (socks) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-roundtable / (roundtable) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-ender / (ender) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-comlink / (comlink) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-auxo-lambda / (auxo) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-vulcan / (vulcan) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-bazooka-lambda / (bazooka) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-auxo-lambda / (auxo) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-roundtable / (roundtable) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-bazooka-lambda / (bazooka) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-comlink / (comlink) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-socks / (socks) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-vulcan / (vulcan) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-ender / (ender) Build and Push
GitHub Check: build
GitHub Check: benchmark
GitHub Check: golangci-lint
GitHub Check: liveness-test
GitHub Check: test-coverage-upload
GitHub Check: test-race
GitHub Check: unit-end-to-end-and-integration
GitHub Check: build-and-push-testnet
GitHub Check: check-sample-pregenesis-up-to-date
GitHub Check: build-and-push-mainnet
GitHub Check: container-tests
GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
GitHub Check: Summary

🔇 Additional comments (2)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (2)

460-543: LGTM! Test correctly validates leverage update rejection with existing positions.

This test properly verifies that updating leverage to a more restrictive configuration (2x leverage = 500_000 ppm IMF) fails when the subaccount already holds a position that would violate the new Initial Margin Requirements. The test flow is clear:

Places orders for Bob and Alice (no leverage configured yet)

Advances block to match orders and create positions

Attempts to update Alice's leverage to a more conservative setting

Correctly asserts that the leverage update fails via CheckTx

269-458: Approve test logic: effectively validates leverage impact on withdrawals.

The TestWithdrawalWithLeverage test provides valuable coverage by:

Configuring leverage for Alice (5x = 200_000 ppm IMF) via CheckTx/ante handler

Creating identical positions for Alice and Bob (Bob uses default 20x leverage)

Computing per-subaccount risk (NC, IMR) and verifying Alice's IMR is higher

Demonstrating that Bob can withdraw more collateral than Alice due to lower margin requirements

This correctly validates that the leverage-aware risk calculation restricts withdrawals appropriately.

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (4)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (4)
407-409: Consider making the leverage comparison more explicit.

The comment correctly states Alice has lower leverage than Bob, but it could be clearer by mentioning Bob's default leverage value from the liquidity tier (20x).
-	// Alice's IMR should be higher due to lower leverage (more conservative)
+	// Alice's IMR should be higher due to lower leverage (5x vs Bob's default 20x from liquidity tier)
447-447: Consider clarifying the test intent.

The comment could be more explicit that this withdrawal amount is intentionally chosen to test a failure case for Alice.
-		Quantums:  bobAvailable.Uint64(), // using bob's available collateral which is greater than alice's
+		Quantums:  bobAvailable.Uint64(), // Intentionally using Bob's higher available amount to trigger Alice's withdrawal failure
455-455: Inconsistent gas limit for failed withdrawal.

Alice's withdrawal uses TestGasLimit * 10 while Bob's uses TestGasLimit. Since Alice's withdrawal is expected to fail validation, it shouldn't require significantly more gas.
 		testapp.MustMakeCheckTxOptions{
 			AccAddressForSigning: constants.Alice_Num0.Owner,
-			Gas:                  constants.TestGasLimit * 10,
+			Gas:                  constants.TestGasLimit,
 			FeeAmt:               constants.TestFeeCoins_5Cents,
 		},
529-530: Consider explaining why the leverage update should fail.

The comment states the update should fail but doesn't explain the mechanism. Adding clarity about the margin requirement increase would help future readers understand the test intent.
-	// Configure leverage for Alice with an existing bitcoin position
-	// This should make the account fail against the IMR check
+	// Configure leverage for Alice with an existing bitcoin position
+	// Updating to 2x leverage (from default ~20x) increases IMR significantly,
+	// so the existing position fails the margin requirement check

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a9608e4 and e181ceb.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📚 Learning: 2025-10-06T20:00:48.549Z

Learnt from: anmolagrawal345
PR: dydxprotocol/v4-chain#3079
File: protocol/x/clob/types/leverage.go:10-56
Timestamp: 2025-10-06T20:00:48.549Z
Learning: In the leverage update flow for protocol/x/clob, the `ValidateUpdateLeverageMsg` function performs basic validation (non-nil checks, non-zero leverage, unique IDs, valid clob pair existence), while maximum leverage validation against `GetMaxLeverageForPerpetual` is intentionally deferred to the `UpdateLeverage` keeper method.

Applied to files:

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (6)

protocol/testutil/app/app.go (5)

NewTestAppBuilder (335-350)

MustMakeCheckTxsWithClobMsg (1352-1393)

AdvanceToBlockOptions (125-152)

MustMakeCheckTxsWithSdkMsg (1397-1408)

MustMakeCheckTxOptions (100-109)

protocol/x/clob/types/expected_keepers.go (1)

SubaccountsKeeper (20-128)

protocol/x/perpetuals/lib/lib.go (1)

GetNetCollateralAndMarginRequirements (71-90)

protocol/x/subaccounts/types/update.go (1)

Update (79-86)

protocol/testutil/constants/addresses.go (2)

BobAccAddress (11-11)

AliceAccAddress (10-10)

protocol/testutil/constants/assets.go (3)

Usdc (49-57)

TestGasLimit (19-19)

TestFeeCoins_5Cents (26-26)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (28)

GitHub Check: container-tests
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-bazooka-lambda / (bazooka) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-auxo-lambda / (auxo) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-ender / (ender) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-vulcan / (vulcan) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-socks / (socks) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-roundtable / (roundtable) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Public Testnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-comlink / (comlink) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-bazooka-lambda / (bazooka) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-vulcan / (vulcan) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-auxo-lambda / (auxo) Build and Push Lambda
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-ender / (ender) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-roundtable / (roundtable) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-comlink / (comlink) Build and Push
GitHub Check: (Mainnet) Build and Push ECS Services / call-build-and-push-ecs-service-socks / (socks) Build and Push
GitHub Check: benchmark
GitHub Check: liveness-test
GitHub Check: test-race
GitHub Check: unit-end-to-end-and-integration
GitHub Check: test-coverage-upload
GitHub Check: build-and-push-mainnet
GitHub Check: build
GitHub Check: golangci-lint
GitHub Check: check-sample-pregenesis-up-to-date
GitHub Check: build-and-push-testnet
GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
GitHub Check: Summary

🔇 Additional comments (2)

protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go (2)

1-61: LGTM! Helper functions are well-structured.

The addition of sendingtypes import and the helper functions are appropriate for the new withdrawal and leverage update tests.

63-267: LGTM! Existing tests look solid.

The leverage configuration tests properly use CustomImfPpm with correct values, and the test logic effectively validates leverage behavior on order placement.

anmolagrawal345 · 2025-10-24T18:59:07Z

https://github.com/Mergifyio backport release/protocol/v9.x

mergify · 2025-10-24T18:59:15Z

backport release/protocol/v9.x

✅ Backports have been created

Details

#3216 Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates (backport #3153) has been created for branch release/protocol/v9.x but encountered conflicts

(cherry picked from commit 70ac841) # Conflicts: # protocol/x/clob/keeper/leverage_e2e_test.go # protocol/x/subaccounts/keeper/leverage.go # protocol/x/subaccounts/types/errors.go

anmolagrawal345 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 15, 2025 15:33

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 had a problem deploying to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Failure

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

github-actions bot added the protocol label Oct 15, 2025

anmolagrawal345 force-pushed the anmol/leverage-orders branch from 8e868f2 to 8cbdff9 Compare October 15, 2025 15:39

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 15, 2025 15:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 24, 2025 16:36 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

coderabbitai bot reviewed Oct 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix leverage test

e181ceb

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to mainnet October 24, 2025 17:29 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

anmolagrawal345 temporarily deployed to testnet October 24, 2025 17:29 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

coderabbitai bot reviewed Oct 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

jusbar23 approved these changes Oct 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

anmolagrawal345 merged commit 70ac841 into main Oct 24, 2025
37 of 38 checks passed

anmolagrawal345 deleted the anmol/leverage-orders branch October 24, 2025 18:44

mergify bot mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2025

Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates (backport #3153) #3216

Open

6 tasks

anmolagrawal345 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025

Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates (#3153)

fd5939c

anmolagrawal345 mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2025

Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates (Backport #3153) #3223

Merged

6 tasks

anmolagrawal345 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025

Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates (Backport #3153) (#3223)

e87b758

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates#3153

Check Leverage on Withdrawals and Updates#3153
anmolagrawal345 merged 3 commits intomainfrom
anmol/leverage-orders

anmolagrawal345 commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

anmolagrawal345 commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented Oct 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

anmolagrawal345 commented Oct 15, 2025 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Changelist

Test Plan

Author/Reviewer Checklist

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Sequence Diagram

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

Suggested reviewers

Poem

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

anmolagrawal345 commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

mergify bot commented Oct 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

✅ Backports have been created

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

anmolagrawal345 commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mergify bot commented Oct 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading