Bring in QED-it Tests#101
Closed
defuse wants to merge 29 commits into
Closed
Conversation
Contributor
|
@defuse wrote:
That change looks correct to me, but it should not be in this PR. (The change does not alter the behaviour of the circuit. It addresses the "Pedersen hash circuit implementation can not calculate inputs larger than 63*3*4" issue in the QED-it report.) |
Collaborator
Author
|
Just added a commit to fix the build warnings. |
stefandeml
pushed a commit
to stefandeml/sapling-crypto
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 5, 2019
fix: switch progressbar libraries, to make compatible to bsd
Contributor
|
Replaced by zcash/librustzcash#93 |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This pulls in a bunch of tests QED-it wrote during their audit that were spread across many branches in their sapling-crypto-internal repository. I've left their history intact so the best way to review it is to just look at the final diff, except for...
I have not reviewed the actual test code myself.
I did not bring in this change to the circuit code, because I don't understand it. I also did not bring in a bunch of changes to comments and variable renamings in the aurel_comments branch and the sum_bug branch, but I did bring in the new tests from those branches.