@riocrypto/common 1.0.2705 → 1.0.2707

package/build/types/order.d.ts

@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ import { LiquidityProvider } from "./liquidity-provider";
 import { OrderStatus } from "./order-status";
 import { PaymentMethod } from "./payment-method";
 import { Processor } from "./processor";
+import { RoutingDecision } from "./routing-decision";
 import { Side } from "./side";
 import { Fees } from "./fees";
 import { PayoutMethod } from "./payout-method";
@@ -37,6 +38,10 @@ export interface Order {
     amountCryptoReceived?: number;
     liquidityProvider: LiquidityProvider;
     processor: Processor;
+    /**
+     * Copied from the quote, not decided again here. See `Quote.routingDecision`.
+     */
+    routingDecision?: RoutingDecision;
     fees: Fees;
     actualFees: Fees;
     price?: number;

package/build/types/quote.d.ts

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ import { PaymentMethod } from "./payment-method";
 import { DeferredPaymentType } from "./deferred-payment-type";
 import { PayoutMethod } from "./payout-method";
 import { Processor } from "./processor";
+import { RoutingDecision } from "./routing-decision";
 import { Side } from "./side";
 import { TwoWaySettlementType } from "./two-way-settlement-type";
 import { OrderType } from "./order-type";
@@ -32,6 +33,13 @@ export interface Quote {
     amountCrypto: number;
     liquidityProvider: LiquidityProvider;
     processor: Processor;
+    /**
+     * How the processor above was arrived at: what the corridor offered, what was
+     * ruled out and why, and the roll that picked between what was left. Kept
+     * because the answer is partly random, so without it a routing complaint cannot
+     * be told apart from a routing bug.
+     */
+    routingDecision?: RoutingDecision;
     fees: Fees;
     price?: number;
     marketPrice: number;

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@riocrypto/common",
-  "version": "1.0.2705",
+  "version": "1.0.2707",
   "description": "",
   "main": "./build/index.js",
   "types": "./build/index.d.ts",