funding: LQT nullifier set for epoch #5034
Merged
Conversation
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
TalDerei
added
the
consensus-breaking
TalDerei
commented
Jan 31, 2025
| use penumbra_sdk_proto::{StateReadProto, StateWriteProto}; | ||
| use penumbra_sdk_sct::{component::clock::EpochRead, Nullifier}; | ||
|
|
||
| #[allow(dead_code)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will be consumed by #5033, silencing for compilation purposes
erwanor
requested changes
Jan 31, 2025
crates/core/component/funding/src/component/liquidity_tournament/nullifier/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/core/component/funding/src/component/liquidity_tournament/nullifier/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
crates/core/component/funding/src/component/liquidity_tournament/nullifier/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
cronokirby
requested changes
Jan 31, 2025
crates/core/component/funding/src/component/liquidity_tournament/nullifier/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
cronokirby
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
erwanor
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2025
## Describe your changes state key for epoch-scoped nullifier set (mapping nullifiers with their associated transaction id), serving as a precursor for performing the necessary stateful [nullifier check](https://github.com/penumbra-zone/penumbra/pull/5033/files#diff-a0986b8d223ab5b1c5536ba06bde1ede6d08f635eb97b386549ecfb55a4f2a4bR112). Additionally, augments the transaction context with `TransactionId`. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5029 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > LQT branch
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
## Describe your changes state key for epoch-scoped nullifier set (mapping nullifiers with their associated transaction id), serving as a precursor for performing the necessary stateful [nullifier check](https://github.com/penumbra-zone/penumbra/pull/5033/files#diff-a0986b8d223ab5b1c5536ba06bde1ede6d08f635eb97b386549ecfb55a4f2a4bR112). Additionally, augments the transaction context with `TransactionId`. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5029 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > LQT branch
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
## Describe your changes state key for epoch-scoped nullifier set (mapping nullifiers with their associated transaction id), serving as a precursor for performing the necessary stateful [nullifier check](https://github.com/penumbra-zone/penumbra/pull/5033/files#diff-a0986b8d223ab5b1c5536ba06bde1ede6d08f635eb97b386549ecfb55a4f2a4bR112). Additionally, augments the transaction context with `TransactionId`. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5029 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > LQT branch
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
## Describe your changes state key for epoch-scoped nullifier set (mapping nullifiers with their associated transaction id), serving as a precursor for performing the necessary stateful [nullifier check](https://github.com/penumbra-zone/penumbra/pull/5033/files#diff-a0986b8d223ab5b1c5536ba06bde1ede6d08f635eb97b386549ecfb55a4f2a4bR112). Additionally, augments the transaction context with `TransactionId`. ## Issue ticket number and link references #5029 ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > LQT branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Describe your changes
state key for epoch-scoped nullifier set (mapping nullifiers with their associated transaction id), serving as a precursor for performing the necessary stateful nullifier check. Additionally, augments the transaction context with
TransactionId.Issue ticket number and link
references #5029
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: