redesign initial distribution logic

[0xChqrles]

Resolves #77.

Also brings some modifications to the _enforce_holders_limit internal. The method can also decrease holders count if the sender has no tokens left after the transfer.

Lastly, it might be interesting to discuss about adding additional checks in the _enforce_holders_limit such as asserting the amount param or recipient are not null. With current ERC20 implementation, those checks are useless, but it makes this method rely on ERC20 behaviour. Without those checks, this method is a kind of ERC20 extension, which is not a bad design, but also not necessarily what we want.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
unruggable-memecoin	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Dec 19, 2023 3:27pm

[0xEniotna]

Souldn't it be current_holders_count <= MAX_HOLDERS_BEFORE_LAUNCH?`

[0xChqrles]

current_holders_count is not increase yet, so it's < but we can also check that current_holders_count + 1 <= MAX_HOLDERS_BEFORE_LAUNCH

[0xEniotna]

Can you cnahge this:

fn transferFrom(
            ref self: ContractState,
            sender: ContractAddress,
            recipient: ContractAddress,
            amount: u256
        ) -> bool {
            let caller = get_caller_address();
            self.erc20._spend_allowance(sender, caller, amount);
            self._transfer(sender, recipient, amount);
            true
        }

into this:

fn transferFrom(
            ref self: ContractState,
            sender: ContractAddress,
            recipient: ContractAddress,
            amount: u256
        ) -> bool {
            return self.transfer_from(sender, recipient, amount);
        }

(not related to your PR at all but since it's not merged yet...)

[0xEniotna]

LGTM ! I hope we won't have to change every single tests once again in the future...