Repository navigation
Conversation
Contributor
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
reclaim-buffers derives PDAs with the solana cli and prices dust with bc. Adds both to the cow-cli image (solana v4.0.3, amd64-only since agave has no arm64 linux build) so buffer reclaim runs in-cluster.
kaze-cow
force-pushed
the
cli-reclaim-buffer
branch
from
October 16, 2026 05:51
189969d to
6ff19dd
Compare
This was referenced Oct 16, 2026
# Conflicts: # test-cli/src/cmd/buffer/create.rs
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
kaze-cow
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 19, 2026 06:29
kaze-cow
commented
Oct 19, 2026
Comment on lines
+11
to
+13
| # Buffer reclaim derives PDAs and reads keypairs with the Solana CLI and prices | ||
| # dust with bc. Agave ships a prebuilt CLI for x86_64 Linux only, so the Solana | ||
| # CLI goes in on amd64 alone; order reclaim needs neither tool. |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@glokos out of context, its unclear what this buffer reclaim script is as is commented here in this repo
Maybe better to just indicate here that its "useful to have" the solana toolchain here along with the CLI?
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
kaze-cow
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2026
# Description Brings the `cow` CLI Docker image and its `CLI image` workflow into `main`. This is all @glokos's work: it builds `ghcr.io/cowprotocol/cow-cli` for amd64 and arm64, then merges both into one manifest tagged with the sha and branch/tag. The image includes the Solana CLI and `bc` that the buffer-reclaim script needs. The first three commits are Assem's original commits from #190 and #205, cherry-picked unchanged. The last one drops the temporary `cli-reclaim-buffer` push trigger, which #190 said to remove once the image landed in `main`. ## Motivation #190 and #205 were merged into the reclaim stack's branches instead of `main`, so the image work now shows up inside #206/#207/#204 and makes them harder to review. Landing it here on its own means those PRs only show CLI changes once they're rebased. ## Considerations ### Credit Please **rebase-merge** this PR rather than squash it, so that Assem's commits land on `main` with him as the author. The trigger commit lists him as co-author too. ### Parity with the stack `.github/workflows/cli-image.yml` and `test-cli/Dockerfile` on this branch are byte-for-byte identical to the versions on `cli-reclaim-buffer` (#204), so rebasing the stack onto `main` afterwards should drop these files from its diff. ## How to test This PR should be the same as those already included in the buffer reclaim changes we eventually expect to merge: ``` git diff origin/cli-reclaim-buffer -- .github/workflows/cli-image.yml test-cli/Dockerfile # empty ``` **Once merged**, any branch that contains the workflow file can be built by hand, via Actions → CLI image → Run workflow (pick the branch under "Use workflow from") or: ``` gh workflow run cli-image.yml --ref <branch> ``` Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible to workflow dispatch until this is actually merged, but an example of this dockerfile generating a successful build though CI is [already on its actions page](https://github.com/cowprotocol/solana-programs/actions/workflows/cli-image.yml). The image is tagged `cow-cli:<branch>` (slashes become `-`) and `cow-cli:sha-<short>`. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Assem Hasna <assem@cow.fi> Co-authored-by: Assem Hasna <210342530+glokos@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Federico Giacon <58218759+fedgiac@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Adds
cow buffer reclaim <target> <buffer>[:<max burn>]..., which closes up to 11 buffer PDAs in one transaction, burns whatever they hold up to a per-buffer limit, and sends their rent totarget. The CLI image also gets the Solana CLI andbc(#205), which the devops buffer-reclaim script uses.Motivation
This is used by the reclaim scripts on the devops side. It's the last of the three PRs split out of the original version of this one, stacked on #207 (buffer create), which is stacked on #206 (order reclaim).
Considerations
Older deployments
Buffer and state PDAs are seeded with the
<major>.<minor>release, so--settlement-versionlets the CLI derive them for a deployment of an older release (e.g.0.4). The interface gainssettlement_seed_for_versionfor this, and the CLI wraps it inSettlementSeed, which validates the version string.Burn limits
A buffer holding more than its burn limit is left open and listed instead of failing the batch, since the program would skip it anyway. Any other bad buffer (wrong owner, not at its mint's PDA, not a token account) aborts the whole batch before anything is sent.
Batch size
MAX_BUFFERS = 11is the worst case: both token programs, and a reclaim authority signing separately from the payer.How to test
🤖 Generated with Claude Code