-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 316
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
test: genRowShares
and genOrigRowShares
#1049
Labels
testing
items that are strictly related to adding or extending test coverage
Comments
rootulp
added
the
testing
items that are strictly related to adding or extending test coverage
label
Nov 22, 2022
evan-forbes
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 27, 2023
Closes celestiaorg/celestia-core#920 Closes #1226 b/c deletes that code Closes #1049 b/c deletes that code ## Description Previously the logic to generate tx proofs was flawed because it did not accurately identify which shares a transaction belongs to. Additionally the struct `TxProof` (originally defined by Tendermint but later modified in celestia-core) was incomplete because it did not contain proofs for the inclusion of a set of rows to the data square root. This PR modifies the TxInclusion logic to return a share inclusion proof instead of a transaction inclusion proof. The share inclusion proof does contain proofs for the rows to the data square root. In order for txs to use share inclusion proofs, `SplitTxs` was updated to keep track of the range of shares that a tx occupies. --------- Co-authored-by: CHAMI Rachid <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanaz Taheri <[email protected]>
cmwaters
pushed a commit
to celestiaorg/go-square
that referenced
this issue
Dec 14, 2023
Closes celestiaorg/celestia-core#920 Closes celestiaorg/celestia-app#1226 b/c deletes that code Closes celestiaorg/celestia-app#1049 b/c deletes that code ## Description Previously the logic to generate tx proofs was flawed because it did not accurately identify which shares a transaction belongs to. Additionally the struct `TxProof` (originally defined by Tendermint but later modified in celestia-core) was incomplete because it did not contain proofs for the inclusion of a set of rows to the data square root. This PR modifies the TxInclusion logic to return a share inclusion proof instead of a transaction inclusion proof. The share inclusion proof does contain proofs for the rows to the data square root. In order for txs to use share inclusion proofs, `SplitTxs` was updated to keep track of the range of shares that a tx occupies. --------- Co-authored-by: CHAMI Rachid <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanaz Taheri <[email protected]>
0xchainlover
pushed a commit
to celestia-org/celestia-app
that referenced
this issue
Aug 1, 2024
Closes celestiaorg/celestia-core#920 Closes celestiaorg/celestia-app#1226 b/c deletes that code Closes celestiaorg/celestia-app#1049 b/c deletes that code ## Description Previously the logic to generate tx proofs was flawed because it did not accurately identify which shares a transaction belongs to. Additionally the struct `TxProof` (originally defined by Tendermint but later modified in celestia-core) was incomplete because it did not contain proofs for the inclusion of a set of rows to the data square root. This PR modifies the TxInclusion logic to return a share inclusion proof instead of a transaction inclusion proof. The share inclusion proof does contain proofs for the rows to the data square root. In order for txs to use share inclusion proofs, `SplitTxs` was updated to keep track of the range of shares that a tx occupies. --------- Co-authored-by: CHAMI Rachid <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sanaz Taheri <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Context
There exist two functions in
pkg/prove/proof.go
that do not contain unit tests.celestia-app/pkg/prove/proof.go
Lines 127 to 128 in 8604be9
celestia-app/pkg/prove/proof.go
Lines 154 to 157 in 8604be9
There were previously unit tests that can be used for inspiration when working on this issue. The relevant tests were commented out in #692 and removed in #1027
Proposal
Add unit tests for the functions above
Related
#703
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: