[mmm] T22 extension MMM support #87
Conversation
solonk8
changed the title
| bump | ||
| )] | ||
| pub pool: Box<Account<'info, Pool>>, | ||
| pub asset_mint: InterfaceAccount<'info, Mint>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lets enforce token program here
programs/mmm/src/ext_util.rs
Outdated
| pub fn check_allowlists_for_mint_ext( | ||
| allowlists: &[Allowlist], | ||
| token_mint: &AccountInfo, | ||
| allowlist_aux: Option<String>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are we going to use merkle tree for t22? or token group is enough?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be good for now as no one is using the group extension
solonk8
changed the title
programs/mmm/src/ext_util.rs
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ | |||
| use anchor_lang::prelude::*; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we create a util mod and put this file along with the generic util.rs file in it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The util file exists, I can merge these two
| new Array(32).fill(0), | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const { mint: mint2, recipientTokenAccount: recipientTokenAccount2 } = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can probably remove this second test, or test with no group
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh no_group has been tested in correctly verifies depositing nfts with ANY allowlist.
tests/utils/nfts.ts
Outdated
| connection: Connection, | ||
| payer: Keypair, | ||
| recipient?: PublicKey, | ||
| groupKeyPair?: Keypair, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lets make some of these arguments PublicKey if there is no need for them to be a keypair
merged in to this branch as well. Also need to take care of withdraw but will implement in a separate pr |
solonk8
changed the title
solonk8
changed the title
solonk8
changed the title
| try_close_sell_state(sell_state, payer.to_account_info())?; | ||
|
|
||
| // return the remaining per pool escrow balance to the shared escrow account | ||
| if pool.using_shared_escrow() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since we will need to consider shared escrow, which means we will need to use check_remaining_accounts_for_m2 and withdraw_m2 to withdraw the sol from M2 first
| pub system_program: Program<'info, System>, | ||
| pub token_program: Interface<'info, TokenInterface>, | ||
| pub associated_token_program: Program<'info, AssociatedToken>, | ||
| pub rent: Sysvar<'info, Rent>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah it is required for the init_if_needed_at
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think should be good to get rid of rent account now; in other places the init_if_needed doesn't require this account anymore
| } else { | ||
| owner.to_account_info() | ||
| }; | ||
| let PoolPriceInfo { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just want to double check if we cover all the necessary logic within this function refactoring
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah it's simply a DRY refactor and should be covered by the test
| 0, // buyside_creator_royalty_bp, | ||
| ) | ||
| }?; | ||
| let lp_fee = get_sol_lp_fee(pool, buyside_sol_escrow_account.lamports(), seller_receives)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure if this same logic was checked into the previous shared escrow PRs, and it won't affect the current implementation, but if there is a double-sided pool that is shared escrow, because we withdraw the SOL from shared escrow after we perform this LP fee calculation, there will be no LP fee charged ever.
|
|
||
| let (total_price, next_price) = | ||
| get_sol_total_price_and_next_price(pool, args.asset_amount, true)?; | ||
| let seller_receives = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
need to move this as well with the comment, just fyi
collection offer support for T22 extension