Add c'tor to create ProofBuilder using only tree size#277
Merged
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #277 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 55.99% 22.94% -33.06%
===========================================
Files 8 16 +8
Lines 759 1896 +1137
===========================================
+ Hits 425 435 +10
- Misses 265 1390 +1125
- Partials 69 71 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
roger2hk
approved these changes
Apr 25, 2025
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR adds a second c'tor for
ProofBuilderwhich enables construction of a new instance based solely on the tree size.This provides a means to construct consistency proofs without having to hold both checkpoints (e.g. if you're trying to convince someone else of consistency between a checkpoint they hold, and a newer checkpoint you hold - this is exactly what happens during the
tlog-witnessprotocol).This is safe as generated proofs must be verified against checkpoint root hashes by the consumer anyway; any inconsistency will be detected at that point.