This fixes a silly SQL syntax error and then several incorrect calculations from
52
This is due to not enough care being taken during the original work.
The current tick liquidity queries need to handle that the reserves in question are now spread across multiple Fee rows for any given TickIndex in question. So in particular update queries where only one Fee and row are effected, care must be taken that the returned reserves number is the reserves of the whole TickIndex and not just part of the tick index reserves that changed recently.
This fixes a silly SQL syntax error and then several incorrect calculations from
52
This is due to not enough care being taken during the original work.
The current tick liquidity queries need to handle that the
reservesin question are now spread across multipleFeerows for any givenTickIndexin question. So in particular update queries where only oneFeeand row are effected, care must be taken that the returnedreservesnumber is the reserves of the wholeTickIndexand not just part of the tick index reserves that changed recently.