Closed benjaminsavage closed 2 months ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 98.38710%
with 1 line
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 91.63%. Comparing base (
40bdad2
) to head (f30bfe3
).
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
...rc/protocol/ipa_prf/malicious_security/verifier.rs | 98.30% | 1 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
I left a few small naming suggestions on #1134. It's easier to just merge that PR and put up a new one with those changes given timezones =).
The tests were also bothering me. I have tried to unify what we are testing with the actual approach we intend to use. Namely:
Now that these are unified, we can just test it two ways, manually calling
recurse_u_or_v
many times, as well as to callrecursively_compute_final_check
. Now we can just assert these give the same answer.How did I get the expected numbers? I updated the Google Spreadsheet where I have manually implemented this ZKP protocol: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10tCSgiZyQbt4bMB3KqhAUOCfgfO8xIni83J2saipFCg/edit?usp=sharing
I like to see that the numbers match up. It gives me confidence that we did things correctly, since mistakes are likely to be independent in these two wildly different implementations.