able to set mintFees for lazyClaim

[donpdang]

This PR

We want to be able to set Manifold mint fees dynamically. Use case is for polygon network, MATIC cost is different than ETH so we need to be able to accoun and set the fees however we like.
The changes are:

• Add setMintFees to LazyPayableClaim. This is gated by adminRequired modifier
• Add tests
• Add ability to pause claim initializations

Screenshots (if applicable)

Ticket

https://linear.app/manifoldxyz/issue/UPDATE-THIS-PART

Self-Review

• Review and comment PR file changes
• Description provides context for the changes
• Tests are included for the PR (required on server changes)

CR Notes

QA Steps

• [ ]

[github-actions]

LCOV of commit 5fcf8c1 during Test! #472

Summary coverage rate:
  lines......: 58.9% (1920 of 3262 lines)
  functions..: 62.3% (282 of 453 functions)
  branches...: 41.8% (391 of 936 branches)

Files changed coverage rate: n/a

[nikki-kiga]

lgtm!
sidenote - is it possible there's an existing bug with insufficient funds check in _transferFunds that isn't inclusive of the mintfee?

[wwhchung]

This is not a good PR. We need to store the mint fee in the claim itself so we don't rug old claims when the fee changes.

[wwhchung]

We need to store it efficiently in the claim. How many bits do we have left? Can we be smart and store in gwei instead of wei to reduce the amount of bits we need?

[wwhchung]

See all my comments.

[wwhchung]

1. We should not pass the fee to constructor, otherwise addresses will be different on different chains
2. If you are allowing fee changes to the contract, then you will need to store the current fee at time of claim initialization, and you will need to read the fee from the claim
3. If you are allowing for Make setArweaveHashes function virtual and simplify non-implemented #2, then we need to store the fee as efficient as possible. Maybe in gwei, maybe in some other thing. But we shouldn't exceed the bits that would push the lazyclaim object to another storage slot
4. If 3 is not possible, maybe you ONLY allow the fee to be set once.

[donpdang]

lgtm! sidenote - is it possible there's an existing bug with insufficient funds check in _transferFunds that isn't inclusive of the mintfee?

hmm I thought _transferFuns is inclusive of the mintFee according to

creator-core-extensions-solidity/packages/manifold/contracts/lazyclaim/LazyPayableClaim.sol

Line 103 in e2be17d

payableCost += merkle ? MINT_FEE_MERKLE : MINT_FEE;