Fix: pass session key instead of full authority data in Ed25519SessionAuthority methods

[wirewallet-jeremy]

I hit this trying to use the SDK to create sub-accounts under a Swig smart wallet.

Stacktrace

Error: Invalid PublicKey byte length. Lenght is 80, not 32 bytes
    at new _class (@swig-wallet/lib/dist/index.cjs:37:13)
    at Object.subAccountCreateV1Instruction (@swig-wallet/lib/dist/index.cjs:2405:23)
    at _Ed25519SessionAuthority.subAccountCreate (@swig-wallet/lib/dist/index.cjs:4080:31)
    at async getCreateSubAccountInstructions (@swig-wallet/classic/dist/index.cjs:164:19)

This attempts to fix the issue where the SDK's _Ed25519SessionAuthority.subAccountCreate passes the full 80-byte authority data to new PublicKey(), which expects 32 bytes and crashes with 'Invalid PublicKey byte length. Length is 80, not 32 bytes.'

Instead of passing the entire 80-byte serialized authority struct, just pass the 32 byte session key.

Script which should reproduce the issue:

import { Connection, Keypair, PublicKey } from "@solana/web3.js";
import {
  fetchSwig,
  getCreateSubAccountInstructions,
  getCreateSwigInstructionBuilder,
  createEd25519AuthorityInfo,
  createEd25519SessionAuthorityInfo,
  ActionsBuilder,
  findSwigPda,
} from "@swig-wallet/classic";

// Create a Swig with root (Ed25519) + session (Ed25519Session) authorities
const rootActions = ActionsBuilder.new().all().manageAuthority().subAccount().get();
const sessionActions = ActionsBuilder.new().solLimit({ amount: 100000000n }).subAccount().get();

const swigId = new Uint8Array(32);
crypto.getRandomValues(swigId);

const rootAuthInfo = createEd25519AuthorityInfo(rootKeypair.publicKey.toBase58());
const sessionAuthInfo = createEd25519SessionAuthorityInfo(
  sessionKeypair.publicKey.toBase58(),
  1512000n, // ~7 days in slots
);

const builder = getCreateSwigInstructionBuilder({
  payer: rootKeypair.publicKey,
  swigAddress: findSwigPda(swigId),
  id: swigId,
  actions: rootActions,
  authorityInfo: rootAuthInfo,
  options: { signingFn },
});
builder.addAuthority(sessionAuthInfo, sessionActions);
// ... submit transaction, Swig created successfully with 2 roles ...

// Now try to create a sub-account for role 1 (Ed25519Session):
const swig = await fetchSwig(connection, swigAddress);
const instructions = await getCreateSubAccountInstructions(swig, 1, {
  payer: sessionKeypair.publicKey,
  signingFn: sessionSigningFn,
});
// ^ THROWS: Invalid PublicKey byte length. Length is 80, not 32 bytes

[tracy-codes]

overall this LGTM. can you please add some regression tests just to ensure this never pops up again in the future?

[tracy-codes]

can we add a regression test for this exact path?

please cover Ed25519 session authority + getCreateSubAccountInstructionContext(...) (or classic getCreateSubAccountInstructions(...)) and assert it no longer throws Invalid PublicKey byte length and successfully creates the sub-account PDA.

[tracy-codes]

since this PR updates multiple Ed25519 session methods from this.data (80-byte struct) to this.sessionKey.toBytes() (32-byte key), can we add one manage-authority regression test as well (e.g. add-authority via session role) to lock this behavior in?

[wirewallet-jeremy]

Absolutely, I will add some tests soon!

[thewuhxyz]

Oh yes. Thanks for this! Although, these should be .id() or address() with the new methods. not .sessionKey.toBytes(). Nice catch

[wirewallet-jeremy]

@thewuhxyz - Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm seeing this.id -> this.info.publicKey. this.address -> this.ed25519PublicKey, and this.signer -> this.sessionKey.toBytes(). Should we be using this.signer here?

[thewuhxyz]

this.signer is just for instructions that sign, like subAccountSign and sign, this.id/address should be used for other instruction, mostly.

[wirewallet-jeremy]

Ok switched 'em all over to this.id. Let me know how it looks.

[wirewallet-jeremy]

@thewuhxyz - any other changes you'd like to see in this PR? Thanks for looking!

[thewuhxyz]

Looks good to me. Just wondering the cause of the hiccup in CI

[wirewallet-jeremy]

I'm not sure, do you think it's related to my changes?

[wirewallet-jeremy]

I reverted the last commit to see if it would address the failing tests. Can add back if necessary, lmk

[tracy-codes]

@wirewallet-jeremy please rebase your fork against latest main here and push up, some changes to CI were made to support solana v3.x.x. that should trigger the action to run again and pass

[wirewallet-jeremy]

@wirewallet-jeremy please rebase your fork against latest main here and push up, some changes to CI were made to support solana v3.x.x. that should trigger the action to run again and pass

Will do @tracy-codes. Thanks for looking!