-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
[ci] Use the actual Splice.Amulet.CryptoHash functions in CryptoHashProxy #5118
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
Open
adetokunbo
wants to merge
1
commit into
adetokunbo/cip-104-add-lookup-open-mining-round-by-number
Choose a base branch
from
adetokunbo/use-actual-crypto-hash-in-equivalence-test
base: adetokunbo/cip-104-add-lookup-open-mining-round-by-number
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+18
−44
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't these be modified to work with actual data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I looked into this but it doesn't work cleanly for the equivalence test.
The issue is that the Daml
Hashableinstances forPartyandDecimalapply their own serialization (partyToText,show) beforehashing, and these don't necessarily match the text strings we pass to
the SQL side. For example,
showonDecimal(0)produces"0.0000000000"not"0", and party IDs go throughpartyToText.The purpose of this test is to verify the hash algorithm is equivalent
(Daml == SQL), not to test Daml's type serialization. Keeping the proxy
choices as
Textargs lets us control the exact string representationon both sides, which is what we need for the equivalence comparison.
The proxy still uses the real
Splice.Amulet.CryptoHashprimitives(
hash,hashRecord,hashVariant) — it's only the domain composites(
hashMintingAllowance, batch hashes) that stay as text-based wrappersto avoid the serialization mismatch.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ultimately we have to make sure that
hashonBatchmatches what we compute in sql.Can we show that this is the case?
If there are any serialization mismatches here, then we have an issue on the SQL/scala side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you could say that it is not feasible to match the daml serialization in scala/sql. In that case we must change the instance of
Batchin daml. But that will require further discussion with Simon