Skip to content
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

feat/code review #141

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat/code review #141

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

davibauer
Copy link
Contributor

@davibauer davibauer commented Feb 5, 2024

  • The usage of several formal verification annotations is noted, but nothing is checked against.
  • The Interface (gas-payer-v1) and Verifier (groth16-verifier) have no comments please add. Additionally, the test suite requires more explanatory comments.
  • The MerkleTree contract has no comments, and it’s difficult to ascertain the origins and meanings of various hashes and values, such as those in poseidon-zeros and blake-zeros. The tests focus solely on successful scenarios (using ‘except’) and neglect failure cases (which would use ‘expect-failure’).
  • The repository’s contracts directory includes redundant or outdated files, like the poseidon directory.
  • The contract ‘opact’ has no explanatory comments, requires a description. The tests in ‘transact-tests.repl’ feature numerous commented-out lines, and there requires more test cases.
  • The test cases could benefit from being more comprehensive.
  • The reliance on JavaScript for generating contracts and files may not be the best approach. While it can be utilized for initial generation, the final versions should be committed to the repository.
  • The project structure, as outlined in the Readme.md, seems incomplete. It fails to mention certain aspects like ‘transact’, for example.

…ain the origins and meanings of various hashes and values, such as those in poseidon-zeros and blake-zeros. The tests focus solely on successful scenarios (using ‘except’) and neglect failure cases (which would use ‘expect-failure’)
…. It fails to mention certain aspects like ‘transact’, for example
… be the best approach. While it can be utilized for initial generation, the final versions should be committed to the repository
…ption. The tests in ‘transact-tests.repl’ feature numerous commented-out lines, and there requires more test cases. Overall, there is an almost complete absence of code comments.

- The usage of several formal verification annotations is noted, but nothing is checked against.

- The test cases could benefit from being more comprehensive.
…comments please add. Additionally, the test suite requires more explanatory comments
…ain the origins and meanings of various hashes and values, such as those in poseidon-zeros and blake-zeros. The tests focus solely on successful scenarios (using ‘except’) and neglect failure cases (which would use ‘expect-failure’)
@davibauer davibauer self-assigned this Feb 5, 2024
…ion. The tests in ‘transact-tests.repl’ feature numerous commented-out lines, and there requires more test cases. Overall, there is an almost complete absence of code comments
…ion. The tests in ‘transact-tests.repl’ feature numerous commented-out lines, and there requires more test cases. Overall, there is an almost complete absence of code comments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant