Document consensus rules from 3.9 Nullifier Sets

[conradoplg]

Motivation

We must document all consensus rules.

Specifications

Designs

Solution

I was going over the remaining consensus rules documentation issues and ended up just doing this, just had to reorganize and reformat. (As well as confirming the implementation was there)

Closes #3214

Review

@dconnolly and/or @upbqdn might want to review

Reviewer Checklist

• Code implements Specs and Designs
• Tests for Expected Behaviour
• Tests for Errors

Follow Up Work

[teor2345]

Looks like this failed with bug #3489

[teor2345]

Looks good!

I wrote this code and the original comments, so we might also want to get a review from another cryptographer.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3521 (750ba40) into main (499ae89) will increase coverage by 2.21%.
The diff coverage is 79.81%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3521      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.34%   80.55%   +2.21%     
==========================================
  Files         267      274       +7     
  Lines       31526    32256     +730     
==========================================
+ Hits        24698    25983    +1285     
+ Misses       6828     6273     -555     

[upbqdn]

One note, otherwise LGTM.

[teor2345]

By the way, why does this PR change test coverage when it only edits comments? The bot says there will be 854 new hits.

Our main branch coverage seems to be out of date, maybe we need to start running our coverage job on main again.

I opened ticket #3533 to fix this.

[upbqdn]

I wrote this code and the original comments, so we might also want to get a review from another cryptographer.

I checked the code, comments and consensus rules, and it all looks good to me.

[teor2345]

@Mergifyio update

[mergify]

update

✅ Branch has been successfully updated