You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As part of #5947 an issue was encountered in one of the simulation tests where changing the storage slots of the notes, did not make the transaction simulation fail, even though the logic of the transaction should be constraining tat storage slot to another value.
Investigate this to figure out why it did not fail, and if the check is skipped or what happened.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The storage slots stored locally are used ONLY for helping the node figure out what to return when an oracle requests data, and is not actually returned as part of the data.
The contract are fully constraining and require that the note actually exists, so it don't have an issue. The reason that it seems to pass here, is that even though the oracle is requesting data for storage slot a the mock chooses to completely ignore it and just provide the data it have for slot b anyway.
As the specific test in question don't actually have state but is more interested in seeing the emissions etc, it will behave as if slot a was used.
In an end-to-end test where notes were stored wrongly on b in the pxe, it would simply not be returned, and fail the test.
As part of #5947 an issue was encountered in one of the simulation tests where changing the storage slots of the notes, did not make the transaction simulation fail, even though the logic of the transaction should be constraining tat storage slot to another value.
Investigate this to figure out why it did not fail, and if the check is skipped or what happened.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: