Skip to content
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

fix: sdk should ignore transient fields when verifying proofs #2000

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2024

Conversation

QuantumExplorer
Copy link
Member

@QuantumExplorer QuantumExplorer commented Jul 24, 2024

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

We forgot to update sdk to ignore transient fields on proof verification.

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Ran this afterwards in TUI and it fixed the issue.

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have added "!" to the title and described breaking changes in the corresponding section if my code contains any
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation if needed

For repository code-owners and collaborators only

  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

@QuantumExplorer QuantumExplorer requested a review from shumkov as a code owner July 24, 2024 19:27
Copy link
Member

@shumkov shumkov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@QuantumExplorer
Copy link
Member Author

As this is only a fix in rs-sdk, no need to get flaky JS CI to pass.

@QuantumExplorer QuantumExplorer merged commit 5eb3e8c into v1.0-dev Jul 24, 2024
62 of 65 checks passed
@QuantumExplorer QuantumExplorer deleted the fix/sdkVerifyTransientFields branch July 24, 2024 21:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants