Skip to content
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

Add reqSignerHashes to Alonzo tx body #2198

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 26, 2021
Merged

Conversation

JaredCorduan
Copy link
Contributor

Add reqSignerHashes to Alonzo tx body, and perform the corresponding validation in the UTxOW rule.

additionally (and unrelated, but in a separate commit), consistently use the name wppHash instead of sdHash (as per the new version of the spec).

Copy link
Contributor

@WhatisRT WhatisRT left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Now that we'll most likely have a LedgerInfo type that also gets hashed in there, wppHash would also get another rename... Sorry about that!

@polinavino
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@@ -224,6 +230,13 @@ alonzoStyleWitness = do
inputHashes = Set.fromList utxoHashes
txHashes == inputHashes ?! DataHashSetsDontAgree txHashes inputHashes

let reqSignerHashes' = getField @"reqSignerHashes" txbody
witsKeyHashes = unWitHashes $ witsFromTxWitnesses @era tx
-- We are computing witsKeyHashes twice, here and in shelleyStyleWitness
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

actually we are not! make a comment that the hashes are cached.

And also validate it in the UTxOW rule.
Additionally, rename all sdHash to wppHash
@JaredCorduan JaredCorduan merged commit 8a0fd89 into master Mar 26, 2021
@iohk-bors iohk-bors bot deleted the jc/reqSignerHashes branch March 26, 2021 20:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants