-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add zk_token_proof_program module to sdk #35339
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #35339 +/- ##
=========================================
- Coverage 81.7% 81.7% -0.1%
=========================================
Files 834 835 +1
Lines 224244 224300 +56
=========================================
- Hits 183398 183391 -7
- Misses 40846 40909 +63 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In general, we should avoid putting more in the sdk and rely on the program crates to provide info about them.
I took a quick look at #34901, and it seems like it might be possible to move ReservedAccountKeys
a bit higher up than sdk
, maybe in solana-program-runtime
? That way there's no need to redefine the id in solana-program
, and you can simply import from solana-zk-token-sdk
in solana-program-runtime
.
For all the instances where you pass in ReservedAccountKeys::empty()
to sanitize the transaction, you could keep the old constructor and use that directly, and instead create a new creator for SanitizedTransaction
that always takes in the set of reserved keys.
What do you think?
I generally feel the same way but I think that since the zk token program is an enshrined / native program it's convenient to pull in descriptive details like program id and maybe ix interface without pulling in the zk token sdk and its crypto dependencies. |
The proof program is enshrined at the level of the runtime, but not at the level of the SDK. Maybe I'm missing a use-case, but I can't think of a situation where someone using the SDK would want just the program id and nothing else. The runtime might need it, which is why we have some redefined program ids like https://github.com/solana-labs/solana/blob/master/accounts-db/src/inline_spl_token.rs -- if we can't use the id defined in the zk token sdk crate, let's put the redefined program id in some higher place like these ids. |
Well there is one use-case for client side checking for erroneous write locks |
That's fine with me! |
Problem
The zk token program id is not accessible within the sdk yet but is needed for #34901
Summary of Changes
Adds a
zk_token_proof_program
module to sdk so that other core crates have easy access to its ID.Fixes #