feat: add inclusion proofs txe tests by sklppy88 · Pull Request #11711 · AztecProtocol/aztec-packages

sklppy88 · 2025-02-04T10:50:45Z

Adding inclusion proof txe tests to hopefully replace flaky_e2e_inclusion_tests

sklppy88 · 2025-02-04T10:51:08Z

draft: contracts with no private / public functions should not fail #11743
feat: add inclusion proofs txe tests #11711 👈 (View in Graphite)
fix: make block number in txe make sense #11807 : 1 other dependent PR (#12215 )
master

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

benesjan

Why not delete the e2e test?

benesjan · 2025-02-05T17:51:30Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+    let owner = env.create_account();
+    env.impersonate(owner);
+
+    // Advance a block so we know that at block 2 our contract has not been deployed yet.


I don't understand this comment

Yeah reading this back its definitely not thorough enough. Addressed in 85902d8

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

benesjan · 2025-02-05T17:52:50Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+}
+
+#[test(should_fail_with = "Nullifier witness not found for nullifier")]
+unconstrained fn test_contract_not_initialized() {


Suggested change

unconstrained fn test_contract_not_initialized() {

unconstrained fn contract_not_initialized() {

for consistency

Ah very good point thank you 🙏. Have reworked some of the naming in 85902d8

benesjan · 2025-02-05T17:53:40Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+}
+
+#[test(should_fail_with = "Nullifier witness not found for nullifier")]
+unconstrained fn test_contract_not_deployed() {


This test seems to be equal to the one above.

Hmm to me it seems to not be equal to the above test, one checks for the fail of initialization, the other for the fail of deployment. But I think it's definitely not clear enough so thank you for pointing that out. Have added some comments to explain this in 85902d8

Thunkar · 2025-02-06T10:02:08Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+    let NOTE_VALUE = 69;
+    InclusionProofs::at(contract_address).create_note(owner, NOTE_VALUE).call(&mut env.private());
+
+    env.advance_block_by(2);


I'm not sure anymore 😅. Changed to the default (1) in 85902d8

benesjan

😝

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:30:27Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+    env.advance_block_by(1);
+
+    let current_contract_address = get_contract_address();
+    cheatcodes::set_contract_address(contract_address);


Why do we do this?

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:33:45Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+    assert(note.owner.eq(owner));
+    assert(note.value.eq(NOTE_VALUE));
+
+    // Each of these tests (note inclusion, note non-nullification, and validity (inclusion & non-nullification)) check the assertion at the block of creation of note, as well as at the "current" block


I see that block with number 0 is used. Is that the current block? That's kinda weird. Also as far as I remember block 0 is not a legitimate block number (we start from 1).

i see that the InclusionProof contract ignores it.

Please nuke the use_block_number param from InclusionProofs contract and always use the block number.

It used to be there because from TS we don't have a direct control over block numbers (which we do in TXE tests)

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:35:50Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+}
+
+#[test]
+unconstrained fn note_flow() {


Suggested change

unconstrained fn note_flow() {

unconstrained fn note_validity() {

I think note_validity is a better name here as it communicates what is being tested.

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:38:25Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+#[test]
+unconstrained fn nullify_note_flow() {
+    // This test creates a note, nullifies it, and checks certain properties about it, namely its inclusion in the trees,
+    // the non-inclusion of its nullifier, and its validity (the combination of the previous two). These properties are checked before nullification.


This comment is weird. It says that you nullify the note and then you prove that it's not nullified.

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:42:42Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+}
+
+#[test]
+unconstrained fn nullify_note_flow() {


I think this test can be merged with the previous one as both test note validity.

create note,

test note validity at current block,

nullify note,

test note validity at historical block.

This test is only slightly more strict by checking the the nullifier non-inclusion is handled correctly.

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:48:20Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+}
+
+#[test(should_fail_with = "Assertion failed: Proving nullifier non-inclusion failed: low_nullifier.value < nullifier.value check failed")]
+unconstrained fn note_not_nullified_after_nullified() {


Suggested change

unconstrained fn note_not_nullified_after_nullified() {

unconstrained fn nullifier_non_inclusion_failure() {

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:48:50Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+
+    InclusionProofs::at(contract_address).create_note(owner, 5).call(&mut env.private());
+
+    env.advance_block_by(1);


Shouldn't we automine now? And if it's not yet implemente do we have an issue?

If we have an issue would include a todo everywhere here.

benesjan · 2025-02-10T16:52:51Z

noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/inclusion_proofs_contract/src/test.nr

+}
+
+#[test(should_fail_with = "Assertion failed: Proving nullifier non-inclusion failed: low_nullifier.value < nullifier.value check failed")]
+unconstrained fn note_not_nullified_after_nullified_no_block_number() {


This test looks like the same thing as the previous one and hence would merge it. Note that we are not testing the InclusionsProof contract but the history library and it triggers the same code paths.

benesjan · 2025-02-12T15:19:25Z

Shouldn't we also nuke the inclusion_proofs test in the Counter contract?

sklppy88 · 2025-02-28T10:02:42Z

Superceded by #12215 and #12360.

This was referenced Feb 4, 2025

feat: contracts deployed in txe should emit deployment nullifier automatically #11708

Merged

draft: contracts deployed in txe should emit deployment nullifier #11709

Closed

sklppy88 mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

fix: txe block headers #11710

Merged

sklppy88 changed the title ~~init~~ feat: add inclusion proofs txe test Feb 4, 2025

sklppy88 changed the title ~~feat: add inclusion proofs txe test~~ feat: add inclusion proofs txe tests Feb 4, 2025

sklppy88 changed the base branch from ek/fix/txe-block-headers to graphite-base/11711 February 4, 2025 16:11

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from 93133f7 to d31fc38 Compare February 4, 2025 16:55

sklppy88 mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2025

draft: contracts with no private / public functions should not fail #11743

Closed

sklppy88 force-pushed the graphite-base/11711 branch from ae7c789 to 65b3357 Compare February 5, 2025 12:03

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from d31fc38 to 3410f84 Compare February 5, 2025 12:03

sklppy88 force-pushed the graphite-base/11711 branch from 65b3357 to 20d86fd Compare February 5, 2025 13:00

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch 3 times, most recently from 1abffff to 282a5bc Compare February 5, 2025 13:40

sklppy88 force-pushed the graphite-base/11711 branch from 20d86fd to aa5d4ba Compare February 5, 2025 13:40

sklppy88 marked this pull request as ready for review February 5, 2025 15:17

sklppy88 requested review from Thunkar and benesjan February 5, 2025 17:24

benesjan reviewed Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Thunkar reviewed Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

sklppy88 force-pushed the graphite-base/11711 branch from aa5d4ba to c96f3fb Compare February 6, 2025 10:06

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch 2 times, most recently from d5127ab to f317db5 Compare February 7, 2025 10:09

sklppy88 force-pushed the graphite-base/11711 branch from c96f3fb to bb58c87 Compare February 7, 2025 10:09

sklppy88 changed the base branch from graphite-base/11711 to master February 7, 2025 10:09

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from f317db5 to df09858 Compare February 7, 2025 11:18

sklppy88 changed the base branch from master to graphite-base/11711 February 7, 2025 12:52

sklppy88 force-pushed the graphite-base/11711 branch from baa69a2 to edbd170 Compare February 7, 2025 12:52

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from df09858 to 0882c5b Compare February 7, 2025 12:52

sklppy88 mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2025

fix: make block number in txe make sense #11807

Merged

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from 0882c5b to 353748e Compare February 7, 2025 13:05

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/fix/make-block-number-in-txe-make-sense branch from edbd170 to 3bb2506 Compare February 7, 2025 13:05

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch 5 times, most recently from 955f6b0 to a750023 Compare February 7, 2025 16:35

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/fix/make-block-number-in-txe-make-sense branch 2 times, most recently from 57bee7d to e763b46 Compare February 7, 2025 17:17

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch 4 times, most recently from 20a0708 to 01742d6 Compare February 10, 2025 11:30

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/fix/make-block-number-in-txe-make-sense branch from e763b46 to 35cc0c4 Compare February 10, 2025 11:30

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from 01742d6 to b729ebb Compare February 10, 2025 14:19

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/fix/make-block-number-in-txe-make-sense branch from 35cc0c4 to cd72a0e Compare February 10, 2025 14:19

init

8e21cdf

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/fix/make-block-number-in-txe-make-sense branch from cd72a0e to 69c913c Compare February 10, 2025 15:18

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from b729ebb to 4ae6c08 Compare February 10, 2025 15:18

sklppy88 requested a review from benesjan February 10, 2025 15:46

addressing feedback

85902d8

sklppy88 force-pushed the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch from 4ae6c08 to 85902d8 Compare February 10, 2025 15:52

benesjan requested changes Feb 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

sklppy88 changed the base branch from ek/fix/make-block-number-in-txe-make-sense to graphite-base/11711 February 27, 2025 08:59

sklppy88 mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2025

feat: add historical library tests and remove old inclusion proof contract / related tests #12215

Merged

sklppy88 closed this Feb 28, 2025

sklppy88 deleted the ek/feat/add-inclusion-proofs-txe-tests branch March 13, 2025 10:01

	unconstrained fn test_contract_not_initialized() {
	unconstrained fn contract_not_initialized() {

	unconstrained fn note_flow() {
	unconstrained fn note_validity() {

	unconstrained fn note_not_nullified_after_nullified() {
	unconstrained fn nullifier_non_inclusion_failure() {


		InclusionProofs::at(contract_address).create_note(owner, 5).call(&mut env.private());

		env.advance_block_by(1);

Conversation

sklppy88 commented Feb 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sklppy88 commented Feb 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

benesjan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benesjan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

benesjan commented Feb 12, 2025

Uh oh!

sklppy88 commented Feb 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

sklppy88 commented Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sklppy88 commented Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sklppy88 Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading