-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 629
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: solomachine generic VerifyNonMembership #1720
Merged
damiannolan
merged 5 commits into
damian/solomachine-generic-verify
from
damian/solomachine-verify-non-membership
Jul 27, 2022
Merged
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
82c4ded
adding verification of non-membership with tests
damiannolan a438052
refactor common code to produceVerificationArgs
damiannolan a1bd87b
Merge branch 'damian/solomachine-generic-verify' into damian/solomach…
damiannolan 7769258
removing unused produce args func
damiannolan b8d5d50
Update modules/light-clients/06-solomachine/client_state_test.go
damiannolan File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
[nit] I know
produceVerificationArgs
wasn't changed in this PR, so feel free to dis-regard, but I think 5 values is a bit too many to return. What do you think about wrapping the first 4 values in a struct and having the the method signature return the struct and an error? (unless we can't change the method signature for some reason)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.
Sounds like a great suggestion to me
I guess my only concern would be constructing a type
verificationArgs
which are dependent on arguments that needed to be checked rather than the totality of arguments required for verification. The path/diversifier/data being the others. We could also take away some of the return arguments (public key, sequence) can be derived from the client state. Originally this function was made to reduce redundancy of calls by 6-7 functions, now only 2 functions rely on it so redundancy isn't as much of a concern. Thoughts?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.
In general I agree, and normally lean against having such a large number of return args. I'd be happy to continue the discussion or explore options for improving the function sig and its usage, maybe we could potentially open an issue for this? At least this an unexported function so whatever we decide should not have any implications on consumers.
I'm going to go ahead and merge this to the [WIP] branch and get it R4R with renaming types to remove the
V2
suffixes.