…tAssets

Implements [RFC#105](polkadot-fellows/RFCs#105)
which, at the time of this PR, has not been approved yet. Some aspects
might be changed as a result of discussion.

## TODO
- [x] Add new instruction and use it in conversion functions
- [x] Implement in xcm-executor
- [x] Setup for xcm-executor unit tests
- [x] Actual xcm-executor unit tests
  - [x] Happy path
  - [x] Unhappy path
- [x] Emulated tests
  - [x] Asset hub westend
  - [x] Asset hub rococo
- [x] Benchmarks
  - [x] Dummy values
  - [x] Actual benchmarks
- [x] PRDoc

---------

Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>

Added SetAssetClaimer instruction

---------

Co-authored-by: Francisco Aguirre <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: command-bot <>
Co-authored-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Vincent Geddes <[email protected]>

…-sdk into outbound-queue-v2

…itytech#5876)

A new instruction `InitiateTransfer` is introduced that initiates an
assets transfer from the chain it is executed on, to another chain. The
executed transfer is point-to-point (chain-to-chain) with all of the
transfer properties specified in the instruction parameters. The
instruction also allows specifying another XCM program to be executed on
the remote chain.
If a transfer requires going through multiple hops, an XCM program can
compose this instruction to be used at every chain along the path, on
each hop describing that specific leg of the transfer.

**Note:** Transferring assets that require different paths (chains along
the way) is _not supported within same XCM_ because of the async nature
of cross chain messages. This new instruction, however, enables
initiating transfers for multiple assets that take the same path even if
they require different transfer types along that path.

The usage and composition model of `InitiateTransfer` is the same as
with existing `DepositReserveAsset`, `InitiateReserveWithdraw` and
`InitiateTeleport` instructions. The main difference comes from the
ability to handle assets that have different point-to-point transfer
type between A and B. The other benefit is that it also allows
specifying remote fee payment and transparently appends the required
remote fees logic to the remote XCM.

We can specify the desired transfer type for some asset(s) using:

```rust
/// Specify which type of asset transfer is required for a particular `(asset, dest)` combination.
pub enum AssetTransferFilter {
	/// teleport assets matching `AssetFilter` to `dest`
	Teleport(AssetFilter),
	/// reserve-transfer assets matching `AssetFilter` to `dest`, using the local chain as reserve
	ReserveDeposit(AssetFilter),
	/// reserve-transfer assets matching `AssetFilter` to `dest`, using `dest` as reserve
	ReserveWithdraw(AssetFilter),
}
```

This PR adds 1 new XCM instruction:
```rust
/// Cross-chain transfer matching `assets` in the holding register as follows:
///
/// Assets in the holding register are matched using the given list of `AssetTransferFilter`s,
/// they are then transferred based on their specified transfer type:
///
/// - teleport: burn local assets and append a `ReceiveTeleportedAsset` XCM instruction to
///   the XCM program to be sent onward to the `dest` location,
///
/// - reserve deposit: place assets under the ownership of `dest` within this consensus system
///   (i.e. its sovereign account), and append a `ReserveAssetDeposited` XCM instruction
///   to the XCM program to be sent onward to the `dest` location,
///
/// - reserve withdraw: burn local assets and append a `WithdrawAsset` XCM instruction
///   to the XCM program to be sent onward to the `dest` location,
///
/// The onward XCM is then appended a `ClearOrigin` to allow safe execution of any following
/// custom XCM instructions provided in `remote_xcm`.
///
/// The onward XCM also potentially contains a `BuyExecution` instruction based on the presence
/// of the `remote_fees` parameter (see below).
///
/// If a transfer requires going through multiple hops, an XCM program can compose this instruction
/// to be used at every chain along the path, describing that specific leg of the transfer.
///
/// Parameters:
/// - `dest`: The location of the transfer next hop.
/// - `remote_fees`: If set to `Some(asset_xfer_filter)`, the single asset matching
///   `asset_xfer_filter` in the holding register will be transferred first in the remote XCM
///   program, followed by a `BuyExecution(fee)`, then rest of transfers follow.
///   This guarantees `remote_xcm` will successfully pass a `AllowTopLevelPaidExecutionFrom` barrier.
/// - `remote_xcm`: Custom instructions that will be executed on the `dest` chain. Note that
///   these instructions will be executed after a `ClearOrigin` so their origin will be `None`.
///
/// Safety: No concerns.
///
/// Kind: *Command*.
///
InitiateTransfer {
	destination: Location,
	remote_fees: Option<AssetTransferFilter>,
	assets: Vec<AssetTransferFilter>,
	remote_xcm: Xcm<()>,
}
```

An `InitiateTransfer { .. }` instruction shall transfer to `dest`, all
assets in the `holding` register that match the provided `assets` and
`remote_fees` filters.
These filters identify the assets to be transferred as well as the
transfer type to be used for transferring them.
It shall handle the local side of the transfer, then forward an onward
XCM to `dest` for handling the remote side of the transfer.

It should do so using same mechanisms as existing `DepositReserveAsset`,
`InitiateReserveWithdraw`, `InitiateTeleport` instructions but
practically combining all required XCM instructions to be remotely
executed into a _single_ remote XCM program to be sent over to `dest`.

Furthermore, through `remote_fees: Option<AssetTransferFilter>`, it
shall allow specifying a single asset to be used for fees on `dest`
chain. This single asset shall be remotely handled/received by the
**first instruction** in the onward XCM and shall be followed by a
`BuyExecution` instruction using it.
If `remote_fees` is set to `None`, the **first instruction** in the
onward XCM shall be a `UnpaidExecution` instruction. The rest of the
assets shall be handled by subsequent instructions, thus also finally
allowing [single asset buy
execution](paritytech#2423)
barrier security recommendation.

The `BuyExecution` appended to the onward XCM specifies
`WeightLimit::Unlimited`, thus being limited only by the `remote_fees`
asset "amount". This is a deliberate decision for enhancing UX - in
practice, people/dApps care about limiting the amount of fee asset used
and not the actually used weight.

The onward XCM, following the assets transfers instructions,
`ClearOrigin` or `DescendOrigin` instructions shall be appended to stop
acting on behalf of the source chain, then the caller-provided
`remote_xcm` shall also be appended, allowing the caller to control what
to do with the transferred assets.

Closes paritytech#5209

---------

Co-authored-by: Francisco Aguirre <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: command-bot <>

Co-authored-by: Vincent Geddes <[email protected]>

Addresses paritytech#4284

For V5, removed `required_weight_at_most` from `Transact`.
The weigher now has to decode the call inside of a transaction in order
to know it's dispatch weight.
It's harder to make mistakes now, since the user no longer specifies a
weight value which might be wrong.

…rigin on destination (paritytech#5971)

Built on top of paritytech#5876

# Description

Currently, all XCM asset transfer instructions ultimately clear the
origin in the remote XCM message by use of the `ClearOrigin`
instruction. This is done for security considerations to ensure that
subsequent (user-controlled) instructions cannot command the authority
of the sending chain.

The problem with this approach is that it limits what can be achieved on
remote chains through XCM. Most XCM operations require having an origin,
and following any asset transfer the origin is lost, meaning not much
can be done other than depositing the transferred assets to some local
account or transferring them onward to another chain.

For example, we cannot transfer some funds for buying execution, then do
a `Transact` (all in the same XCM message).

In the case of XCM programs going from source-chain directly to
dest-chain without an intermediary hop, we can enable scenarios such as
above by using the AliasOrigin instruction instead of the ClearOrigin
instruction.

Instead of clearing the source-chain origin, the destination chain shall
attempt to alias source-chain to "original origin" on the source chain.
Most common such origin aliasing would be X1(Parachain(source-chain)) ->
X2(Parachain(source-chain), AccountId32(origin-account)) for the case of
a single hop transfer where the initiator is a (signed/pure/proxy)
account origin-account on source-chain. This is equivalent to using the
DescendOrigin instruction in this case, but also usable in the multi hop
case.

This allows an actor on chain A to Transact on chain B without having to
prefund its SA account on chain B, instead they can simply transfer the
required fees in the same XCM program as the Transact.

As long as the asset transfer has the same XCM route/hops as the rest of
the program, this pattern of usage can be composed across multiple hops,
to ultimately Transact on the final hop using the original origin on the
source chain, effectively abstracting away any intermediary hops.

### XCM `InitiateAssetsTransfer` instruction changes

A new parameter `preserve_origin` to be added to the
`InitiateAssetsTransfer` XCM instruction that specifies if the original
origin should be preserved or cleared.

```diff
InitiateAssetsTransfer {
	destination: Location,
	assets: Vec<AssetTransferFilter>,
	remote_fees: Option<AssetTransferFilter>,
+	preserve_origin: bool,
	remote_xcm: Xcm<()>,
}
```

This parameter is explicitly necessary because the instruction should be
usable between any two chains regardless of their origin-aliasing trust
relationship. Preserving the origin requires some level of trust, while
clearing it works regardless of that relationship.
Specifying `preserve_origin: false` will always work regardless of the
configured alias filters of the
involved chains.

# Testing

- [x] e2e test: User on PenpalA registers foreign token (transacts) on
PenpalB through XCM, while paying all fees using USDT (meaning XCM has
to go through AssetHub) - AH carries over the original origin,
effectively being a transparent proxy,
- [x] e2e test: User/contract on Ethereum registers foreign token
(transacts) on Polkadot-PenpalA through XCM (over bridge), while paying
all fees using DOT (has to go through AssetHub) - AH carries over the
original origin, effectively being a transparent proxy for Ethereum,

---------

Signed-off-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Francisco Aguirre <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Branislav Kontur <[email protected]>

…vider