stake-pool: add bindings to js #2806

AlexanderRay · 2022-01-25T21:56:14Z

add new bindings
- IncreaseValidatorStake
- DecreaseValidatorStake
- UpdateValidatorListBalance
- UpdateStakePoolBalance
- CleanupRemovedValidatorEntries
- DepositStake
add new function
- stakePoolInfo

…program-library into stake_pool_bindings

stake-pool/js/package.json

joncinque · 2022-01-26T13:40:20Z

As @CMEONE pointed out, it looks like this blasted the changes made during #2681. Could you rebase your changes onto that commit at least?

AlexanderRay · 2022-01-26T19:23:19Z

As @CMEONE pointed out, it looks like this blasted the changes made during #2681. Could you rebase your changes onto that commit at least?

yea, sorry, my fault, will fix it...

joncinque · 2022-01-26T21:23:47Z

Looks like there are still a few regressions introduced -- could you run this with npm version 7 so that package.lock stays on version 2, and also run the linting / formatting / building?

AlexanderRay · 2022-01-26T22:37:48Z

Looks like there are still a few regressions introduced -- could you run this with npm version 7 so that package.lock stays on version 2, and also run the linting / formatting / building?

is seems like prettier for some reason has different formatting options in the tests ... checking ...

CMEONE · 2022-01-27T06:45:02Z

@AlexanderRay I just wanted to clarify a small thing: in the code, there are references to stakePoolPubKey, stakePoolProgramAddress, and stakePoolAddress (as function parameters). Is there any difference between the three, or is it possible to make it so that the naming is consistent to avoid any confusion?

AlexanderRay · 2022-01-28T15:54:59Z

@AlexanderRay I just wanted to clarify a small thing: in the code, there are references to stakePoolPubKey, stakePoolProgramAddress, and stakePoolAddress (as function parameters). Is there any difference between the three, or is it possible to make it so that the naming is consistent to avoid any confusion?

fixed

stake-pool/js/package.json

# Conflicts: # stake-pool/js/package-lock.json # stake-pool/js/package.json

CMEONE · 2022-01-31T16:55:48Z

Again, great work on these bindings! I am receiving an error with the depositSol command from your previous PR:

Program log: Error: First update old validator stake account balances and then pool stake balance

I assume that updateStakePool (added in this PR) would need to be called first to update the stake pool before new stake can be deposited. I also see that updateRequired in stakePoolInfo would tell me if the stake pool needs to be updated.

Is there any way to create an updateStakePoolAndDepositSol function or something that detects automatically if the stake pool needs to be updated (by just checking for the updateRequired part and not running all the other computations in stakePoolInfo) and adds those update instructions along with deposit instructions, otherwise just returns the deposit instructions if an update is not needed? I don't think that this can be done atomically, but it would be nice to have a function that can achieve this functionality in the most efficient way possible.

CMEONE · 2022-02-01T22:10:54Z

Correction to my previous comment: it may be better to remove the detection step entirely and just have a helper function call the two instruction functions and concatenate the instructions. However, this is probably best to have in a separate, third-party library and not in the main bindings.

joncinque

The meat of this looks really good! A few bits to clean up and fix -- let me know if you have any questions

stake-pool/js/package.json

stake-pool/js/tsconfig.json

stake-pool/js/test/equal.ts

stake-pool/js/src/buffer-layout.d.ts

stake-pool/js/src/index.ts

stake-pool/js/src/instructions.ts

stake-pool/js/src/utils/stake.ts

stake-pool/js/src/utils/token.ts

CMEONE · 2022-02-09T04:06:14Z

@AlexanderRay small issue: after doing some testing on devnet, I discovered that withdrawStake doesn't always properly honor the minimum balance for stake accounts:

This is one example of trying to withdraw lamports in a way that technically looks like it would be allowed given the total stake lamports in the validator account but doesn't honor the minimum amount of lamports that must be stored in a stake pool program validator account:

Transaction simulation failed: Error processing Instruction 2: custom program error: 0x17 
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: Approve
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2024 of 200000 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [1]
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
    Program log: Attempting to withdraw 99900000 lamports from validator account with 100000000 stake lamports, 1000000 must remain
    Program log: Error: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy consumed 16664 of 200000 compute units
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy failed: custom program error: 0x17

Here's another example, this time the amount requested for withdrawal is above the amount available in the validator account, and although there is another validator account that has enough lamports to make up the difference, the bindings still attempt to withdraw more from the first validator account than possible:

Transaction simulation failed: Error processing Instruction 2: custom program error: 0x17 
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: Approve
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2024 of 200000 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [1]
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
    Program log: Attempting to withdraw 102282880 lamports from validator account with 100000000 stake lamports, 1000000 must remain
    Program log: Error: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy consumed 16683 of 200000 compute units
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy failed: custom program error: 0x17

The bindings have previously dipped into multiple validator accounts and successfully withdrawn stakes from multiple validator accounts in a single transaction, so I know that can't be the issue.

joncinque

A couple last bits and this should be good, pending @CMEONE 's issue

stake-pool/js/tsconfig.json

stake-pool/js/src/buffer-layout.d.ts

stake-pool/js/src/copied-from-solana-web3/layout.ts

AlexanderRay · 2022-02-10T22:52:24Z

@AlexanderRay small issue: after doing some testing on devnet, I discovered that withdrawStake doesn't always properly honor the minimum balance for stake accounts:

This is one example of trying to withdraw lamports in a way that technically looks like it would be allowed given the total stake lamports in the validator account but doesn't honor the minimum amount of lamports that must be stored in a stake pool program validator account:
Transaction simulation failed: Error processing Instruction 2: custom program error: 0x17 
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: Approve
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2024 of 200000 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [1]
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
    Program log: Attempting to withdraw 99900000 lamports from validator account with 100000000 stake lamports, 1000000 must remain
    Program log: Error: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy consumed 16664 of 200000 compute units
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy failed: custom program error: 0x17
Here's another example, this time the amount requested for withdrawal is above the amount available in the validator account, and although there is another validator account that has enough lamports to make up the difference, the bindings still attempt to withdraw more from the first validator account than possible:
Transaction simulation failed: Error processing Instruction 2: custom program error: 0x17 
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: Approve
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2024 of 200000 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [1]
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
    Program log: Attempting to withdraw 102282880 lamports from validator account with 100000000 stake lamports, 1000000 must remain
    Program log: Error: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy consumed 16683 of 200000 compute units
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy failed: custom program error: 0x17
The bindings have previously dipped into multiple validator accounts and successfully withdrawn stakes from multiple validator accounts in a single transaction, so I know that can't be the issue.

can you please check now if i works properly on your side

CMEONE · 2022-02-10T23:07:47Z

Ok @AlexanderRay I will check if it works and let you know, also for instances where there are more instructions that can be fit into a transaction (like if it has to withdraw stake from multiple validator accounts), how should the instructions be split most optimally (or how should they be grouped in transactions if the unstake requires multiple transactions)?

stake-pool/js/package.json

CMEONE · 2022-02-15T00:27:26Z

@AlexanderRay the minimum balance issue seems to be fixed for withdrawStake, but I am now sometimes getting another error:

ransaction simulation failed: Error processing Instruction 4: custom program error: 0xf 
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: Approve
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2024 of 200000 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [1]
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [2]
    Program log: Instruction: Burn
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2667 of 179733 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program Stake11111111111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [2]
    Program Stake11111111111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program Stake11111111111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [2]
    Program Stake11111111111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program Stake11111111111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [2]
    Program Stake11111111111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA invoke [2]
    Program log: Instruction: Transfer
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA consumed 2781 of 156548 compute units
    Program TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy consumed 50390 of 200000 compute units
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy success
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 invoke [1]
    Program 11111111111111111111111111111111 success
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
    Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
    Program log: Incorrect stake account address for vote vgcDar2pryHvMgPkKaZfh8pQy4BJxv7SpwUG7zinWjG, expected JCds2mFABFyurTV7NCwVSpG1JupXjP2ofjSRn6nCA82h, received HL5ixN3TipmVagAyYxtRW7xVjEwiL9rbJ7nd3RdqoZpY
    Program log: Error: Stake account address not properly derived from the validator address
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy consumed 49910 of 200000 compute units
    Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy failed: custom program error: 0xf

The expected address JCds2mFABFyurTV7NCwVSpG1JupXjP2ofjSRn6nCA82h is an activated stake account with a very low balance, the address input HL5ixN3TipmVagAyYxtRW7xVjEwiL9rbJ7nd3RdqoZpY is an activating stake account with a significantly higher balance, both are pointed to vote vgcDar2pryHvMgPkKaZfh8pQy4BJxv7SpwUG7zinWjG. I ran withdrawStake a few minutes after adding stake to the vgcDar2pryHvMgPkKaZfh8pQy4BJxv7SpwUG7zinWjG from the CLI as a pool manager, I believe the inputted one was the stake account which was just created from CLI but is still activating and unmerged, while the expected one was the original stake account.

CMEONE · 2022-02-15T20:01:12Z

The issue described above also seems to be the reason that CI is now failing.

[2022-02-14T22:11:54.411778810Z DEBUG solana_runtime::message_processor::stable_log] Program SPoo1Ku8WFXoNDMHPsrGSTSG1Y47rzgn41SLUNakuHy invoke [1]
[2022-02-14T22:11:54.413795840Z DEBUG solana_runtime::message_processor::stable_log] Program log: Instruction: WithdrawStake
[2022-02-14T22:11:54.432528349Z DEBUG solana_runtime::message_processor::stable_log] Program log: Incorrect stake account address for vote DiyGABdP7sn1Z3Fdhr394nYcteY4dRKBgaRJDWSWmQGq, expected 9qM4cezSUh9jvBL91PboTrG6kph8gc4UoJJ2NCr4vQYt, received 5U3k2hovWDvFrbmRK4wT4ZTgtiwh3Zg4RSesF2aMd8Rw
[2022-02-14T22:11:54.433012780Z DEBUG solana_runtime::message_processor::stable_log] Program log: Error: Stake account address not properly derived from the validator address

CMEONE · 2022-02-16T20:53:53Z

@AlexanderRay I think the issue is that withdrawStake is including accounts which cannot be used for withdrawal such as transient stake accounts which have not yet been merged with the validator stake account. Would it be possible to remove those from the list of valid stake accounts which can be withdrawn, since that seems to be the source of the error?

CMEONE · 2022-02-16T21:07:20Z

stake-pool/js/src/utils/stake.ts

+    numerator: fee.denominator.sub(fee.numerator),
+    denominator: fee.denominator,
+  };
+
  for (const type of ['preferred', 'active', 'transient', 'reserve']) {


I tried removing transient from this list, but then the the error said:

Program log: Error withdrawing from reserve: validator stake accounts have lamports available, please use those first. Program log: Error: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum

Maybe the issue is way back in the findStakeProgramAddress function?

CMEONE · 2022-02-16T21:09:36Z

I just don't understand why I'm getting the error Incorrect stake account address for vote <VOTE_ACCOUNT>, expected <ACTIVE_STAKE_ADDRESS>, received <ACTIVATING_TRANSIENT_STAKE_ADDRESS> when I feel like the one that's being used/received is in fact the correct one in that context. Maybe @joncinque you might be able to better interpret the reasoning behind this error?

joncinque · 2022-02-16T21:46:25Z

stake-pool/js/src/utils/stake.ts

+        continue;
+      }
+
+      let availableForWithdrawal = calcPoolTokensForDeposit(stakePool, lamports - minBalance);


@CMEONE the issue comes from this line. Instead of always subtracting minBalance, it should only be subtracted from the transient accounts, as done in #2900. The errors comes from not withdrawing everything possible from the main stake account before withdrawing from the transient stake account.

That makes sense, but when I tried modifying that line to let availableForWithdrawal = calcPoolTokensForDeposit(stakePool, type == 'transient' ? lamports - minBalance : lamports);, I still got the same error Incorrect stake account address for vote <VOTE_ACCOUNT>, expected <ACTIVE_STAKE_ADDRESS>, received <ACTIVATING_TRANSIENT_STAKE_ADDRESS>.

From the logs, it seems like the issue is not just with not withdrawing everything possible, it's also with trying to withdraw from transient stake accounts before the validator account.

These are the accounts available in the pool on devnet:

Validator 1 active

Validator 2 active

Validator 3 active

Validator 3 transient

This is the order that the bindings chose for withdrawing stake:

Validator 1 active

Validator 3 transient

As you see, the bindings chose to try to withdraw from validator 3 transient before trying validator 3 active (which is where the error occurred).

Also, when useReserve is set to true, it tries withdrawing all the balance from the reserve even if there aren't enough lamports in reserve to cover it fully.

AlexanderRay · 2022-02-17T13:15:18Z

@CMEONE @joncinque please check, last commit should fix the issue

CMEONE · 2022-02-17T17:59:51Z

@AlexanderRay Unfortunately, I am still experiencing the same two issues. When useReserve is set to false, I am getting the error Incorrect stake account address for vote <VOTE_ACCOUNT>, expected <ACTIVE_STAKE_ADDRESS>, received <ACTIVATING_TRANSIENT_STAKE_ADDRESS> (the wrong validator account was used), and when useReserve is true, the reserve account is withdrawn from first, causing the error The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum. I think there might be an issue on how the accounts get prioritized.

CMEONE · 2022-02-17T18:22:11Z

stake-pool/js/src/index.ts

+  const stakeAccountRentExemption = await connection.getMinimumBalanceForRentExemption(
+    StakeProgram.space,
+  );
+
  const withdrawAuthority = await findWithdrawAuthorityProgramAddress(


A few lines below this one, there is the following code:

if (useReserve) { withdrawAccounts.push({ stakeAddress: stakePool.account.data.reserveStake, voteAddress: undefined, poolAmount, }); }

Won't this always fail if there is still stake in the validator accounts? In that case, I think it might be better to remove this part and pass useReserve into the prepareWithdrawAccounts method.

Then, in prepareWithdrawAccounts, we can change this:

if (reserveStakeBalance > 0) { accounts.push({ type: 'reserve', stakeAddress: stakePool.reserveStake, lamports: reserveStakeBalance, }); }

to this:

if (useReserve && reserveStakeBalance > 0) { accounts.push({ type: 'reserve', stakeAddress: stakePool.reserveStake, lamports: reserveStakeBalance, }); }

A few lines below this one, there is the following code:

if (useReserve) { withdrawAccounts.push({ stakeAddress: stakePool.account.data.reserveStake, voteAddress: undefined, poolAmount, }); }

Won't this always fail if there is still stake in the validator accounts? In that case, I think it might be better to remove this part and pass useReserve into the prepareWithdrawAccounts method.

Then, in prepareWithdrawAccounts, we can change this:

if (reserveStakeBalance > 0) { accounts.push({ type: 'reserve', stakeAddress: stakePool.reserveStake, lamports: reserveStakeBalance, }); }

to this:

if (useReserve && reserveStakeBalance > 0) { accounts.push({ type: 'reserve', stakeAddress: stakePool.reserveStake, lamports: reserveStakeBalance, }); }

When processing withdrawals, the order of priority goes:

preferred withdraw validator stake account (if set)
validator stake accounts
transient stake accounts
reserve stake account

Right, that's what it should be. However, when useReserve is set to true, the order becomes:

reserve stake account

which will never work because: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum

The stake pool program won't allow for a stake withdrawal from reserve stake account until all the validator stake accounts have been fully withdrawn.

argh ... checking .. anyway to withdraw from reserve account you should use withdrawSol

Right of course, withdrawSol is most optimal, useReserve seems a bit out of place as a parameter and can probably be removed altogether.

I think I have a solution for the other bug (Incorrect stake account address for vote <VOTE_ACCOUNT>, expected <ACTIVE_STAKE_ADDRESS>, received <ACTIVATING_TRANSIENT_STAKE_ADDRESS>), I'll add another comment once I test that it works (currently dealing with splitting transactions up since transaction sizes can get a bit large sometimes).

AlexanderRay · 2022-02-17T18:38:42Z

@CMEONE is your test pool on devnet? can you share your test environment with us?

CMEONE · 2022-02-17T21:35:46Z

stake-pool/js/src/utils/stake.ts

-      );
-      if (!stakePool.stakeWithdrawalFee.denominator.isZero()) {
+    for (const { stakeAddress, voteAddress, lamports } of filteredAccounts) {
+      if (lamports <= minBalance) {


I believe this condition should be changed to (lamports <= minBalance && type == "transient") because I think @joncinque was saying that the minimum balance part only applies to transient stake accounts.

With this fix, everything seems to be working on devnet.

The reserve part is still problematic, but from inspecting the issue, it seems like there's not much that can be done in the bindings themselves (seems to be an issue in the program itself). For instance, with completely empty validator stake accounts and all the transient stake set to the minimum balance, the program still returns:

Program log: Error withdrawing from reserve: validator stake accounts have lamports available, please use those first. Program log: Error: The lamports in the validator stake account is not equal to the minimum

It seems like it might actually be impossible to withdraw stake from the reserve account even when all other accounts have been fully depleted! In that case, it's probably not worth spending too much time trying to fix that on the bindings side.

I can confirm the reserve part does have a corner case, since it's impossible to totally drain a transient account. I think it's possible to relax that requirement, but I have to think through the implications.

'use_reserve' functionality is just reimplemented bases on cli version

solana-program-library/stake-pool/cli/src/main.rs

Line 1373 in 3d92f8f

let withdraw_accounts = if use_reserve {

@joncinque should I also remove it from cli or make it still sense there?

CMEONE · 2022-02-18T18:41:37Z

stake-pool/js/src/utils/stake.ts

-      if (!stakePool.stakeWithdrawalFee.denominator.isZero()) {
+    for (const { stakeAddress, voteAddress, lamports } of filteredAccounts) {
+      if (lamports <= minBalance) {
+        continue;


Please change the above condition to (lamports <= minBalance && type == "transient") as the minBalance only applies to transient stake accounts. I believe that is all that needs to be fixed (besides useReserve which is a larger issue related to reserve accounts in general).

CMEONE

Thoroughly tested the following methods on devnet: getStakePoolAccount, updateStakePool, depositSol, withdrawSol, withdrawStake, stakePoolInfo

If @joncinque thinks everything looks good, I think this PR can be merged (and pushed to NPM with a minor version bump), and we can revisit the reserve issues in another PR (since that's a larger issue that involves the program itself).

I can't wait to launch BlazeStake on mainnet-beta soon, which would not have been possible without both of you. Thank you so much for your work on these bindings (and for persisting despite all the errors)!

joncinque

Thanks for your patience, looks great!

mergify bot added the community Community contribution label Jan 25, 2022

AlexanderRay added 2 commits January 25, 2022 23:03

Merge branch 'stake_pool_bindings' of github.com:mfactory-lab/solana-…

0d274fd

…program-library into stake_pool_bindings

CMEONE suggested changes Jan 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

stake-pool/js/package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AlexanderRay added 3 commits January 26, 2022 21:34

- merge upstream with local changes

ddefe62

- merge package.json

d3db47c

- update package.json

f7d522b

- fix lint issues

a84b745

CMEONE mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2022

Add stake-pool browser build commands and documentation #2804

Merged

- fix lint issues

c5d25c3

AlexanderRay added 3 commits January 28, 2022 17:22

- another lint fix

7e8131d

- fix & try

c285f48

- force rebuild

d8cdf21

CMEONE suggested changes Jan 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

stake-pool/js/package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AlexanderRay added 7 commits January 28, 2022 22:22

- merge from upstream

a81e6a2

Merge branch 'master' into stake_pool_bindings

31cf6b1

# Conflicts: # stake-pool/js/package-lock.json # stake-pool/js/package.json

fix lint issues

e6a04c9

- update package.json

21ba1ef

- add debug info to prettier

5ceae27

- update prettier settings

c5c9db3

cleanup package json

f7b565e

joncinque reviewed Feb 3, 2022

View reviewed changes

- refactor according PR suggestions

c7ef67f

joncinque reviewed Feb 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

stake-pool/js/tsconfig.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

stake-pool/js/src/buffer-layout.d.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

stake-pool/js/src/copied-from-solana-web3/layout.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

- refactor

cbc8fd0

CMEONE reviewed Feb 11, 2022

View reviewed changes

stake-pool/js/package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

- refactor

77ace61

joncinque reviewed Feb 14, 2022

View reviewed changes

stake-pool/js/package.json Show resolved Hide resolved

AlexanderRay mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2022

stake_pool: fix wrong available_for_withdrawal_wo_fee calculation #2900

Merged

- force pr action

de26f13

CMEONE reviewed Feb 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

joncinque reviewed Feb 16, 2022

View reviewed changes

- fix withdraw stake issue

1fe12f2

CMEONE reviewed Feb 17, 2022

View reviewed changes

CMEONE suggested changes Feb 18, 2022

View reviewed changes

- fix issue

6061d3e

CMEONE approved these changes Feb 18, 2022

View reviewed changes

joncinque approved these changes Feb 23, 2022

View reviewed changes

joncinque merged commit 27a5828 into solana-labs:master Feb 23, 2022

AlexanderRay deleted the stake_pool_bindings branch March 16, 2022 08:37

stake-pool: add bindings to js #2806

stake-pool: add bindings to js #2806

Conversation

AlexanderRay commented Jan 25, 2022 • edited

joncinque commented Jan 26, 2022

AlexanderRay commented Jan 26, 2022

joncinque commented Jan 26, 2022

AlexanderRay commented Jan 26, 2022 • edited

CMEONE commented Jan 27, 2022

AlexanderRay commented Jan 28, 2022

CMEONE commented Jan 31, 2022

CMEONE commented Feb 1, 2022

joncinque left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CMEONE commented Feb 9, 2022

joncinque left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexanderRay commented Feb 10, 2022

CMEONE commented Feb 10, 2022

CMEONE commented Feb 15, 2022 • edited

CMEONE commented Feb 15, 2022

CMEONE commented Feb 16, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CMEONE commented Feb 16, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CMEONE Feb 17, 2022 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexanderRay commented Feb 17, 2022

CMEONE commented Feb 17, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CMEONE Feb 17, 2022 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexanderRay commented Feb 17, 2022 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CMEONE left a comment • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joncinque left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexanderRay commented Jan 25, 2022 •

edited

AlexanderRay commented Jan 26, 2022 •

edited

CMEONE commented Feb 15, 2022 •

edited

CMEONE Feb 17, 2022 •

edited

CMEONE Feb 17, 2022 •

edited

AlexanderRay commented Feb 17, 2022 •

edited

CMEONE left a comment •

edited