added documentation and used transfer_checked instead #254
Conversation
| // Validate token accounts and decimals | ||
| require_eq!( | ||
| accs.user_underlying_token_account.mint, | ||
| accs.vault_underlying_token_mint.key(), | ||
| VaultError::UnderlyingTokenMintMismatch | ||
| ); | ||
| require_eq!( | ||
| accs.vault_underlying_token_account.mint, | ||
| accs.vault_underlying_token_mint.key(), | ||
| VaultError::UnderlyingTokenMintMismatch | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are already checked in InteractWithVault
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are already checked in
InteractWithVault
Yes I performed those validations before leveraging the usefulness of TransferChecked and it seems kind of redundant. But even with that, TransferChecked remains a good option.
| CpiContext::new_with_signer( | ||
| accs.token_program.to_account_info(), | ||
| Transfer { | ||
| TransferChecked { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the point of TransferChecked if we already know that the mints are the same?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I replied to it above. But if you're already sure about the mint and decimals, then you can use Transfer.
|
Thanks for taking a look and submitting this. Two things:
|
|
Yes
I will make sure future PRs are made per thing. |
Add Documentation and Implement transfer_checked
Changes
Implemented
transfer_checkedfor improved token transfer safetytransferwithtransfer_checkedin token operationsEnhanced documentation across multiple components:
Security Considerations
transfer_checkedprovides additional runtime safety by verifying: