Luis Enrique Muñoz Martín

Update: - #793: Not done, but can be done fastly. - #942: Done (see PR comment) - #750: Partially done (see PR comment) - #1675: Not done, but I think...

I think the test you wanted to see is this: https://github.com/centrifuge/centrifuge-chain/blob/main/pallets/loans/src/tests/repay_loan.rs#L552 Could it be?

Good question! Probably, `cfg-types`, which lives in the centrifuge domain, can also access `cfg-traits` (and transitively to `cfg-primitives`), which is at a lower level. Something like the blue line: 

Yes (that is what we are doing all the time). Or if the type is very generic, then it can be place in `cfg-primitives`, and let all pallets to use...

I added another graph to express the idea better of going from more specific (related to our centrifuge domain, top) to more generic (easier for everybody to use, bottom): ...

@wischli @mustermeiszer I was thinking about if we would really need to differentiate between `runtime-common` and `cfg-types` in this schema, maybe both can be the same crate, WDYT? 🤔

I like what you say in your last comment @wischli, I think after this, the structure would be as follows:  Quite simple / straightforward I think the main idea...

Yeah, actually, I agree with you.- `cfg-primitives` should be a module of `runtime-common` then or be at the same level. It should live in the runtime level. The drawn box...

Updated diagram with the above: 

Yes if those types are intended to be used to configure the runtime. Right now, `cfg_types` contains a mix of general purpose types and centrifuge-specific runtime types. The first one...