feat(store/v2): Implement the GetProof for multi store
#18736
Conversation
WalkthroughThe codebase has undergone significant changes to enhance the cryptographic proof system, particularly for handling multi-store keys and their proofs. The modifications include the addition of new methods for marshaling and unmarshaling Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@cool-develope your pull request is missing a changelog! |
| // encodeBytesSlice length-prefixes the byte slice and returns it. | ||
| func EncodeBytesSlice(bz []byte) ([]byte, error) { | ||
| buf := bufPool.Get().(*bytes.Buffer) | ||
| buf.Reset() | ||
| defer bufPool.Put(buf) | ||
|
|
||
| err := EncodeBytes(buf, bz) | ||
|
|
||
| bytesCopy := make([]byte, buf.Len()) | ||
| copy(bytesCopy, buf.Bytes()) | ||
|
|
||
| return bytesCopy, err |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The EncodeBytesSlice function uses a buffer pool to encode bytes, which is a good practice. However, ensure that the error from EncodeBytes is checked before making a copy of the buffer's bytes.
err := EncodeBytes(buf, bz)
+ if err != nil {
+ return nil, err
+ }
bytesCopy := make([]byte, buf.Len())
copy(bytesCopy, buf.Bytes())Committable suggestion
❗ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| // encodeBytesSlice length-prefixes the byte slice and returns it. | |
| func EncodeBytesSlice(bz []byte) ([]byte, error) { | |
| buf := bufPool.Get().(*bytes.Buffer) | |
| buf.Reset() | |
| defer bufPool.Put(buf) | |
| err := EncodeBytes(buf, bz) | |
| bytesCopy := make([]byte, buf.Len()) | |
| copy(bytesCopy, buf.Bytes()) | |
| return bytesCopy, err | |
| // encodeBytesSlice length-prefixes the byte slice and returns it. | |
| func EncodeBytesSlice(bz []byte) ([]byte, error) { | |
| buf := bufPool.Get().(*bytes.Buffer) | |
| buf.Reset() | |
| defer bufPool.Put(buf) | |
| err := EncodeBytes(buf, bz) | |
| if err != nil { | |
| return nil, err | |
| } | |
| bytesCopy := make([]byte, buf.Len()) | |
| copy(bytesCopy, buf.Bytes()) | |
| return bytesCopy, err |
In PR #19002, we are using same test vectors with store v1 after prehash refactoring, what kind of regression tests do you want? like comparing the proof of store/v1? |
| treeRoots, err := result.ProofOps[0].Run([][]byte{[]byte("value1")}) | ||
| s.Require().NoError(err) | ||
| s.Require().Equal(treeRoots[0], storeHash) | ||
| expRoots, err := result.ProofOps[1].Run([][]byte{storeHash}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here, we are testing the proof verification
if its the same tests with the same output then maybe that enough? |
same root hash and valid proof, I think it's enough |
| Key []byte | ||
| Value []byte | ||
| Version uint64 | ||
| ProofOps []CommitmentOp |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The QueryResult struct has been modified to use ProofOps instead of Proof, changing the type from CommitmentOp to []CommitmentOp. This change aligns with the PR objectives to support multi-store proofs. However, ensure that all references and usages of QueryResult throughout the codebase are updated to handle the new ProofOps field correctly.
Description
Closes: #18598
CommitInfometadata storing in the commitment storeAuthor Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
!in the type prefix if API or client breaking changeCHANGELOG.mdReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...