DEX-898l. Fix old royalty withdraw contract

[Bromel777]

No description provided.

[oskin1]

@Bromel777 Add a bit of context: what has been fixed in this contract, how and why this was needed.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR implements and fixes a royalty withdrawal contract system by migrating from Plutarch-based validators to new Aiken-based validators for handling royalty withdrawals from liquidity pools.

• Adds comprehensive Aiken contracts for both single and double royalty pool withdrawal systems
• Removes outdated Plutarch implementations to prevent conflicts with the new Aiken-based approach
• Updates project configuration and test files to support the new v3 validators architecture

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 41 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
validators_v3/validators/royalty_pool/single_royalty_withdraw_pool.ak	Implements single royalty slot withdrawal validation logic
validators_v3/validators/royalty_pool/double_royalty_withdraw_pool.ak	Implements dual royalty slot withdrawal validation with signer-based slot selection
validators_v3/plutus.json	Contains compiled validator definitions and schemas for the new Aiken contracts
validators_v3/lib/splash/*	Supporting library modules for asset handling, pool configurations, and withdrawal orders
plutarch-validators/*	Updates to remove old Plutarch-based double royalty withdrawal implementation

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[Copilot]

Typo in comment: 'delection' should be 'selection'

Suggested change

	// 2) Signer delection
	// 2) Signer selection

[Copilot]

[nitpick] This complex boolean expression should be broken down into multiple lines or separate boolean variables for better readability and maintainability.

Suggested change

	withdraw_x <= prev_rx && withdraw_y <= prev_ry && new_rx == prev_rx - withdraw_x && new_ry == prev_ry - withdraw_y && prev_lq_val == new_lq_val && prev_x_val - withdraw_x == new_x_val && prev_y_val - withdraw_y == new_y_val
	let withdraw_x_within_prev_rx = withdraw_x <= prev_rx
	let withdraw_y_within_prev_ry = withdraw_y <= prev_ry
	let new_rx_is_correct = new_rx == prev_rx - withdraw_x
	let new_ry_is_correct = new_ry == prev_ry - withdraw_y
	let lq_val_unchanged = prev_lq_val == new_lq_val
	let x_val_updated_correctly = prev_x_val - withdraw_x == new_x_val
	let y_val_updated_correctly = prev_y_val - withdraw_y == new_y_val
	let royalty_withdraw_ok =
	withdraw_x_within_prev_rx &&
	withdraw_y_within_prev_ry &&
	new_rx_is_correct &&
	new_ry_is_correct &&
	lq_val_unchanged &&
	x_val_updated_correctly &&
	y_val_updated_correctly

[Copilot]

[nitpick] These complex boolean expressions should be broken down into multiple lines or separate boolean variables for better readability and maintainability.

Suggested change

	withdraw_x <= prev_second_rx && withdraw_y <= prev_second_ry && new_second_rx == prev_second_rx - withdraw_x && new_second_ry == prev_second_ry - withdraw_y && prev_first_rx == new_first_rx && prev_first_ry == new_first_ry
	let cond1 = withdraw_x <= prev_first_rx
	let cond2 = withdraw_y <= prev_first_ry
	let cond3 = new_first_rx == prev_first_rx - withdraw_x
	let cond4 = new_first_ry == prev_first_ry - withdraw_y
	let cond5 = prev_second_rx == new_second_rx
	let cond6 = prev_second_ry == new_second_ry
	cond1 && cond2 && cond3 && cond4 && cond5 && cond6
	} else {
	let cond1 = withdraw_x <= prev_second_rx
	let cond2 = withdraw_y <= prev_second_ry
	let cond3 = new_second_rx == prev_second_rx - withdraw_x
	let cond4 = new_second_ry == prev_second_ry - withdraw_y
	let cond5 = prev_first_rx == new_first_rx
	let cond6 = prev_first_ry == new_first_ry
	cond1 && cond2 && cond3 && cond4 && cond5 && cond6

[Copilot]

[nitpick] This long boolean expression should be broken down into multiple lines for better readability.

Suggested change

	correct_order_input_address && correct_final_pool_address && correct_tokens_qty_in_pool && pool_identity && royalty_withdraw_ok && signature_is_correct && strict_inputs && final_pool_config_is_correct && correct_pool && correct_lovelace_token2token
	correct_order_input_address
	&& correct_final_pool_address
	&& correct_tokens_qty_in_pool
	&& pool_identity
	&& royalty_withdraw_ok
	&& signature_is_correct
	&& strict_inputs
	&& final_pool_config_is_correct
	&& correct_pool
	&& correct_lovelace_token2token

[Copilot]

[nitpick] This long boolean expression should be broken down with consistent formatting - either all conditions on one line or each condition on its own line.

Suggested change

	final_pool_config_is_correct && correct_pool && correct_lovelace_token2token && strict_inputs
	correct_order_input_address &&
	correct_final_pool_address &&
	correct_tokens_qty_in_pool &&
	pool_identity &&
	royalty_withdraw_is_correct &&
	tokens_diff_is_correct &&
	signature_is_correct &&
	final_pool_config_is_correct &&
	correct_pool &&
	correct_lovelace_token2token &&
	strict_inputs

[AOranov]

@Bromel777 what is the reason for validators v2/v3 separation? They all are Aiken validators of different pool types and orders

[Bromel777]

@Bromel777 what is the reason for validators v2/v3 separation? They all are Aiken validators of different pool types and orders

We split validators into v2 and v3 because, while they’re all Aiken validators (for different pools/orders), v3 targets the latest Aiken with Plutus v3, and the existing contracts use the prior Aiken with Plutus v2. Migrating everything now would be a major effort due to new validator definitions and would change script hashes, breaking existing deployments. To avoid that, and with @oskin1’s approval, we’re keeping legacy (v2) contracts separate from the new v3 ones.