Skip to content

Extract non-controversion commits from Proof-system-v1 PR #1465

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 17, 2025

Conversation

guggero
Copy link
Member

@guggero guggero commented Apr 11, 2025

To make review easier on #1453, I'm extracting a couple of commits that aren't directly related to that PR (or are certain we want them, like the removal of the alt leaves from the inputs).

gijswijs and others added 2 commits April 11, 2025 14:00
IsTransferRoot returns true if this asset represents a root transfer. A
root transfer is an asset that is neither a genesis asset nor contains
split commitment witness data.
@guggero guggero requested review from Roasbeef and gijswijs April 11, 2025 12:11
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 11, 2025

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 14406448762

Details

  • 4 of 12 (33.33%) changed or added relevant lines in 5 files are covered.
  • 49 unchanged lines in 9 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 28.367%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
asset/mock.go 0 1 0.0%
asset/encoding.go 0 2 0.0%
asset/asset.go 0 5 0.0%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
address/address.go 2 67.47%
address/mock.go 2 88.24%
asset/group_key.go 2 57.89%
asset/mock.go 3 65.3%
tapchannel/aux_leaf_signer.go 3 43.43%
commitment/tap.go 4 71.82%
tapdb/universe.go 4 80.57%
tapgarden/caretaker.go 6 68.25%
asset/asset.go 23 48.6%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 14334641175: -0.03%
Covered Lines: 25874
Relevant Lines: 91212

💛 - Coveralls

@guggero guggero mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2025
@guggero
Copy link
Member Author

guggero commented Apr 11, 2025

Need to look into the failing itest...

@guggero guggero force-pushed the extract-refactors-from-proof-v1 branch from 87a673f to 171f7ae Compare April 11, 2025 15:16
@guggero
Copy link
Member Author

guggero commented Apr 11, 2025

Removed commit c9b1d54 as that only makes sense in the context of #1453. So we'll have to add that again there.

This bool accidentally was set to `true`. It does not affect the logic,
but it does affect the debug logging in `deriveCommitmentKeys`. By
correcting the value to `false`, we ensure that the debug logging
mentions the correct prooftype: Exclusion.
Since we're only ever passing nil (and we use the previous witness
in the script/burn key), we just remove the witness parameter
completely.
@guggero guggero force-pushed the extract-refactors-from-proof-v1 branch from 171f7ae to c8a7971 Compare April 11, 2025 15:19
Copy link
Member

@Roasbeef Roasbeef left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🦍

@levmi levmi moved this from 🆕 New to 👀 In review in Taproot-Assets Project Board Apr 17, 2025
@guggero guggero requested review from ffranr and removed request for gijswijs April 17, 2025 13:20
@ffranr ffranr added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 17, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit db28a03 Apr 17, 2025
18 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from 👀 In review to ✅ Done in Taproot-Assets Project Board Apr 17, 2025
@guggero guggero deleted the extract-refactors-from-proof-v1 branch April 17, 2025 16:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: ✅ Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants