Assumption that leaves are ordered is not used consistently #121
Assignees
Labels
audit
Issue uncovered during Informal audit
Comments
Closed
5 tasks
staheri14
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 12, 2023
…ered ascendingly (#188) ## Overview Closes #121 and #148. Please refer to this [PR](#193) to compare the new and old version of namsespacre range calculation for a parent node in the `HashNode()`. ## Checklist - [x] New and updated code has appropriate documentation - [x] New and updated code has new and/or updated testing - [x] Required CI checks are passing - [x] Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates - [x] Linked issues closed with keywords
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
There is an assumption that leaves of NMTs are ordered by their namespace ids.
However, this assumption is not used.
For instance, here the spec takes
min(l.minNs, r.minNs), wherel.minNswould suffice. Similarly, here in the code the same thing happens. On the other hand, the assumption is used in the function CalculateAbsenceIndex, when finding the appropriate leaf for the absence proof.As this seems to be an important assumption, it would probably make the code and the spec clearer if it were consistently used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: