chore: fixes the HashLeaf description #92
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #92 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.21% 96.21%
=======================================
Files 6 6
Lines 423 423
=======================================
Hits 407 407
Misses 10 10
Partials 6 6
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
| // ns(rawData) || ns(rawData) || hash(leafPrefix || rawData), where raw data is the leaf's | ||
| // data minus the namespaceID (namely leaf[NamespaceLen:]). | ||
| // ns(leaf) || ns(leaf) || hash(leafPrefix || leaf), where ns(leaf) is the namespaceID | ||
| // inside the leaf's data namely leaf[:n.NamespaceLen]). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, this is clearer as it is aligned with the naming of the actual variable (leaf). I think the original comment was a somewhat confusing attempt to say that the leaf contains both the namespace + the raw data. This is still implicitly there ("where ns(leaf) is the namespaceID inside the leaf's data namely leaf[:n.NamespaceLen])".
|
Congrats, your important contribution to this open-source project has earned you a GitPOAP! GitPOAP: 2023 Celestia Contributor: Head to gitpoap.io & connect your GitHub account to mint! Learn more about GitPOAPs here. |
Overview
While reviewing the nmt codebase (as part of this EPIC) I realized the description of the
HashLeaffunction does not match its implementation (w.r.t. referred variable names) which causes confusion when comprehending the code. This PR aims to correct and revise that description.Also, the illustration of an nmt provided in the Readme file seems not aligned with the leaf hash calculation, where in the
node_0.0thed_0.0=H(data_0)while it should bed_0.0=H(0x00, nid_0, data_0). I was not able to edit the image as its source code is not available.