-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 158
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
conway.cddl costmdls clarification #4383
Comments
@rooooooooob, thank you for pointing out the error. I have now fixed the cddl to be:
which is correct and more precise than what we had before. With regards to your last question, I don't understand everything you are asking (particularly towards the end), but I can start by saying that the Conway deserialization of costmodels does not check the number of values in the list, because the Plutus function that we are passing this list to (namely |
Due to changes here: IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#4284 Clarification here: IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#4383 Allows non-Plutus languages according to the spec and changes to an indexable map type.
Due to changes here: IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#4284 Clarification here: IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#4383 Allows non-Plutus languages according to the spec and changes to an indexable map type.
Due to changes here: IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#4284 Clarification here: IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#4383 Allows non-Plutus languages according to the spec and changes to an indexable map type.
Slightly pedantic but as of #4284 the definition was changed to:
Is this meant to be
[ * int64]
? Or[ 166* int64]
(etc)? Currently it's saying there are exactly 1 element per array as per the CDDL RFC but that's obviously not the intention.Is that
3
key meant to just be a comment or suggestion for all others keys being allowed with zero restrictions e.g.* uint => [* int64]
?I'm mostly wanting to know about that old comment (e.g.
? 0 : [ 166* int ] ; Plutus v1, only 166 integers are used, but more are accepted (and ignored)
) holds true and we need to accept but ignore elements after or not, but that those minimums still need to be checked. And if that ignoring has any bearing on costmodel's language view encoding computation since that hashes cost models' cost array inside a serialized CBOR structure. As far as I understand this is canonical CBOR (besides the plutus v1 difference) so not directly taking it out of the cost models on-chain serialization.The previous eras' .cddl specs still maintain their bounds (
babbage.cddl
/alonzo.cddl
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: