feat: Basic verification logic for mock MainPOD #43
Conversation
…s replaced by self.id()
add MockMainPod.pub_statements logic so that when originid==SELF it is replaced by self.id()
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| // get the input_statements from the self.statements | ||
| let input_statements = &self.statements[input_statement_offset..]; | ||
| // get the id out of the public statements, and ensure it is equal to self.id | ||
| let ids_match = self.id == PodId(hash_statements(&self.public_statements).unwrap()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note for myself: the MockMainPod has the field public_statements which is built from statements[statements.len() - params.max_public_statements..], so we could get rid of it.
| && if let StatementArg::Key(AnchoredKey(pod_id, key_hash)) = s.1[0] { | ||
| pod_id == SELF && key_hash == hash_str(KEY_TYPE) | ||
| } else { | ||
| false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be a malformed invalid POD right?
| if let StatementArg::Key(ak) = &s.1[0] { | ||
| vec![(i, ak.1, ak.0)] | ||
| } else { | ||
| vec![] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be a malformed POD right?
| .map(|(i, s)| { | ||
| ( | ||
| // Separate private from public statements. | ||
| if i < self.params.max_priv_statements() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this mean that I can have a ValueOf for the same key with different values as long as one is in priv_statements and the other is in pub_statements?
| .check(s.clone()) | ||
| }) | ||
| .collect::<Result<Vec<_>>>() | ||
| .unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would panic if any check returns Err right?
| } | ||
| // TODO: Argument checking. | ||
| /// Checks the given operation against a statement. | ||
| pub fn check(&self, output_statement: Statement) -> Result<bool> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
About the return type:
Is the Err case reserved for malformed operation/statements, and the Ok(false) for properly formed data but invalid deduction?
| , | ||
| // Check that the operation acts on a statement *and* the | ||
| // output is equal to this statement. | ||
| CopyStatement => Ok(output_statement == self.args()[0].statement()?) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a design question: In the Devcon implementation Operation and Statement were more strongly typed:
https://github.com/0xPARC/parcnet/blob/f7ef5e2fedea10f349c6343fb24d84374edbbad2/pod2/src/pod/operation.rs#L17-L33
https://github.com/0xPARC/parcnet/blob/f7ef5e2fedea10f349c6343fb24d84374edbbad2/pod2/src/pod/statement.rs#L79-L90
Here they are very generic, where the arguments are not strongly typed to be correct.
This generic code leads to a more verbose check implementation, but I also think it has benefits in other parts of the code.
Do you have any thoughts on this approach VS the previous one? Do you like this implementation of check?
This PR fills in some of the gaps in the verification of mock MainPODs.