Pw/check nullifiers#112
Merged
Merged
Conversation
spalladino
force-pushed
the
pw/check-nullifiers
branch
from
aa5a4a1 to
1883764
Compare
spalladino
reviewed
Apr 4, 2023
Comment on lines
138
to
144
| public findContractIndex(leafValue: Buffer): Promise<bigint | undefined> { | ||
| return this.merkleTreeDB.findLeafIndex(MerkleTreeId.CONTRACT_TREE, leafValue); | ||
| return this.merkleTreeDB.findLeafIndex(MerkleTreeId.CONTRACT_TREE, leafValue, false); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public getContractPath(leafIndex: bigint): Promise<SiblingPath> { | ||
| return this.merkleTreeDB.getSiblingPath(MerkleTreeId.CONTRACT_TREE, leafIndex); | ||
| return this.merkleTreeDB.getSiblingPath(MerkleTreeId.CONTRACT_TREE, leafIndex, false); | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@PhilWindle can you confirm if the AztecNode is supposed to use committed data only?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, committed data only.
| // TODO(AD): this is an exhaustive search currently | ||
| if ((await this.worldState.findLeafIndex(MerkleTreeId.NULLIFIER_TREE, nullifier.toBuffer())) !== undefined) { | ||
| if ( | ||
| (await this.worldState.getLatest().findLeafIndex(MerkleTreeId.NULLIFIER_TREE, nullifier.toBuffer())) !== |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@PhilWindle I understand txDoubleSpend check should use latest, but please confirm.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Theoretically it shouldn't matter. At the point of validating the new set of txs the sequencer shouldn't have started modifying any of the trees. Using getLatest is fine.
ludamad
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2023
Implements RAM/ROM stuff and dynamic arrays as well as separated all fixed_base operation in standard plonk into a separate file, so that it is no longer part of composer
codygunton
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2024
Implements RAM/ROM stuff and dynamic arrays as well as separated all fixed_base operation in standard plonk into a separate file, so that it is no longer part of composer
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Please provide a paragraph or two giving a summary of the change, including relevant motivation and context.
Checklist: