-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor(anchorSapling): Change type to force consensus rule validation #3544
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, I checked for panics and serialization.
But I want someone else to double-check the cryptography.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3544 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 78.34% 80.46% +2.12%
==========================================
Files 267 274 +7
Lines 31526 32276 +750
==========================================
+ Hits 24698 25971 +1273
+ Misses 6828 6305 -523 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great! It just needs a couple of fixes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
It seems there's a fake-activation-heights test failing, I can help track it down tomorrow if needed. (There's also another CI failure that seems devops-related) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great!
Motivation
We want to change the
anchorSapling
type similar to orchard so range consensus rule is automatically validated.Close #3528
Solution
Change the type from bytes into
jubjub::Fq
.Review
There is a lot of changes needed at different files but they are almost all trivial to me expect the one about sorting. I will like some input maybe from @conradoplg there before marking the pull request as ready for review. I made a comment for this in the code.
Reviewer Checklist