Added IDO Program Milestone Project #85
Conversation
|
Commenting so I get updatez From RFP for Anchor Book contributions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey, thank you for the contribution. Please see the review comments(some are pretty repetitive) that should be addressed before this can get merged.
It would be great if the explanation side of things improved as well. When contributing to a book of something such as anchor book, it's expected for the contributors to have a higher degree of precision in their words. I'll give an example: The term "fiat" and "stablecoin" are two different phenomena and should not be used interchangebly. The word "fiat" has been used 435 times in this PR yet it doesn't look like anything in the program that checks whether that's the case and the program doesn't have to use "fiat" anyway.
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: acheron <98934430+acheroncrypto@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
||
| /// CHECK: This is not dangerous | ||
| #[account(mut)] | ||
| pub pool_signer: AccountInfo<'info>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think _authority is a better naming convention here, especially considering it's not signing anything in this instruction
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that would be very confusing considering we also have authority account.
_ generally means not being used in Rust and it's good practice to make account names consistent in instructions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was meant as a suffix, ie *_authority
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to be clear, should I be using pool_signer or pool_authority?
| impl<'info> InitializePool<'info> { | ||
| fn accounts(ctx: &Context<InitializePool<'info>>, bump: u8) -> Result<()> { | ||
| let expected_signer = Pubkey::create_program_address( | ||
| &[ctx.accounts.pool_native.mint.as_ref(), &[bump]], | ||
| ctx.program_id, | ||
| ) | ||
| .map_err(|_| ErrorCode::InvalidBump)?; | ||
| if ctx.accounts.pool_signer.key != &expected_signer { | ||
| return Err(ErrorCode::InvalidBump.into()); | ||
| } | ||
| Ok(()) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function you instead want to use is Pubkey::find_program_address() and it will take the seeds (without bump) and return the Pubkey and the bump.
You really shouldn't need to pass the bump as an instruction parameter
|
|
||
| /// CHECK: This is not dangerous | ||
| #[account(mut)] | ||
| pub pool_signer: AccountInfo<'info>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that would be very confusing considering we also have authority account.
_ generally means not being used in Rust and it's good practice to make account names consistent in instructions.
| impl<'info> InitializePool<'info> { | ||
| fn accounts(ctx: &Context<InitializePool<'info>>, bump: u8) -> Result<()> { | ||
| let expected_signer = Pubkey::create_program_address( | ||
| &[ctx.accounts.pool_native.mint.as_ref(), &[bump]], | ||
| ctx.program_id, | ||
| ) | ||
| .map_err(|_| ErrorCode::InvalidBump)?; | ||
| if ctx.accounts.pool_signer.key != &expected_signer { | ||
| return Err(ErrorCode::InvalidBump.into()); | ||
| } | ||
| Ok(()) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Though both are valid and you are free to use Native validations, it's not "Anchor way" of doing things.
There is #[instruction(...)] macro if you want to get instruction arguments and validating seeds/bump should be done with #[account(...)] macro, especially in the Anchor Book.
|
|
||
| This program will be doing a couple of things. In an IDO, a project distributes its native tokens among willing investors. There are a few types of IDOs which are done. We will be implementing a fair launch IDO platform. In here, a project escrows the native tokens into a pool. When the IDO opens, investors come and deposit their fiat tokens into the pool. After the IDO is over, investors can claim their native tokens, the amount of which is calculated by the the pool percentage share of their deposit. The project can also finally withdraw all the deposited fiat tokens. | ||
|
|
||
| We recommend keeping programs in a single `lib.rs` file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we recommend this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although maintaining a project directory structure is a good practice, implementing it in the milestone project might make the Anchor Book content massive.
|
@acheroncrypto @buffalojoec |
| pub token_program: Program<'info, Token>, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[account] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here you can just add #[derive(InitSpace)] and remove the LEN const
| pub fn exchange_redeemable_for_native(ctx: Context<ExchangeRedeemableForNative>) -> Result<()> { | ||
| let native_amount = (ctx.accounts.depositor_redeemable.amount as u128) | ||
| .checked_mul(ctx.accounts.pool_native.amount as u128) | ||
| .unwrap() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
better here to chain and unwrap at the end (the better is a result)
| pool.end_ido_ts = end_ido_ts; | ||
| pool.withdraw_deposit_token_ts = withdraw_deposit_token_ts; | ||
|
|
||
| pool.bump = bump; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a huge fan to let set the bump by an argument, it let place to bump seed non canonicalization exploit
| } | ||
| // While token::transfer will check this, we prefer a verbose error msg | ||
| if ctx.accounts.depositor_deposit_token.amount < amount { | ||
| return Err(ErrorCode::LowDepositToken.into()); |
| pub native_mint: Box<Account<'info, Mint>>, | ||
|
|
||
| #[account(mut, constraint = pool_native.owner == *pool_signer.key)] | ||
| pub pool_native: Box<Account<'info, TokenAccount>>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know why the boxing of all accounts are required here
Anchor milestone project based on advanced Anchor concepts
Concepts added:
@acheroncrypto