[js-client] Add idl.json for the program and add js clients

[samkim-crypto]

Summary of Changes

I annotated the program using codama macros (see codama-macros branch e.g. bfb5a68) and generated idl.json.

Using this idl, I generated the js-clients, added wrapper functions, and then added tests for the js clients.

This is a pretty big PR, so I did not include yet:

• the CI does not test the new js clients
• the build js client generation script

I was planning on adding these on a follow-up PR, but I'd be happy to add these if the reviewers would prefer I include it in this PR.

[joncinque]

I only looked at the idl.json, and it looks correct to me. Feel free to land this if you want, but it might be clearer in the future to add things in this kind of order:

• Codama macros + idl in one PR
• Client generation in another
• Tests in a last one

[samkim-crypto]

Okay got it. I'll follow the structure for the zk elgamal proof program.

For the codama macros, I added it to the codama-macros branch and not the main branch. Do you prefer to have the codama macros on the main branch?

[grod220]

For the codama macros, I added it to the codama-macros branch and not the main branch. Do you prefer to have the codama macros on the main branch?

I think that is quite valuable work to get pushed up. I'd imagine the gold standard future will be: codama macros -> generated idl -> generated clients.

So the source of truth for future changes will now be those macros versus manual editing of the idl.json.

[samkim-crypto]

Alright, makes sense. I saw that none of the other solana-program repos had the code annotations/decorations in the actual program code, so I didn't add it. I'll add the macros in the follow-up 👍

[samkim-crypto]

Actually if I add the macros, then I need to add codama as a dependency for the program (e.g. here). If I add it to dev-dependencies and have the decorations in the code, then the compiler will complain. Do you think it is still worth having it in the main branch?

[grod220]

Graduating codama to a prod dependency sounds fine to me. I don't think a codama macro branch is the optimal workflow for keeping the schema up-to-date. Think it being in the main branch is more idiomatic. If an instruction changes, the dev will be able to update the schema+clients in one go---tightly coupling the program code with the clients.

[samkim-crypto]

Okay makes sense. I'll add codama to the list of dependencies.