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

chore: random typos #10393

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 4, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
26 changes: 13 additions & 13 deletions noir-projects/aztec-nr/authwit/src/auth.nr
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -193,12 +193,12 @@ use dep::aztec::protocol_types::{
global IS_VALID_SELECTOR: Field = 0x47dacd73; // 4 last bytes of poseidon2_hash_bytes("IS_VALID()")

/**
* Assert that `on_behalf_of` have authorized the current call with a valid authentication witness
* Assert that `on_behalf_of` has authorized the current call with a valid authentication witness
*
* Computing the `inner_hash` using the `msg_sender`, `selector` and `args_hash` and then making a call out to the
* Compute the `inner_hash` using the `msg_sender`, `selector` and `args_hash` and then make a call out to the
* `on_behalf_of` contract to verify that the `inner_hash` is valid.
*
* @param on_behalf_of The address that have authorized the current call
* @param on_behalf_of The address that has allegedly authorized the current call
*/
// docs:start:assert_current_call_valid_authwit
pub fn assert_current_call_valid_authwit(context: &mut PrivateContext, on_behalf_of: AztecAddress) {
Expand All @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ pub fn assert_current_call_valid_authwit(context: &mut PrivateContext, on_behalf
* Used as an internal function for `assert_current_call_valid_authwit` and can be used as a standalone function when
* the `inner_hash` is from a different source, e.g., say a block of text etc.
*
* @param on_behalf_of The address that have authorized the current call
* @param on_behalf_of The address that has allegedly authorized the current call
* @param inner_hash The hash of the message to authorize
*/
pub fn assert_inner_hash_valid_authwit(
Expand All @@ -235,21 +235,21 @@ pub fn assert_inner_hash_valid_authwit(
.unpack_into();
assert(result == IS_VALID_SELECTOR, "Message not authorized by account");
// Compute the nullifier, similar computation to the outer hash, but without the chain_id and version.
// Those should already be handled in the verification, so we just need something to nullify, that allow same inner_hash for multiple actors.
// Those should already be handled in the verification, so we just need something to nullify, that allows the same inner_hash for multiple actors.
let nullifier = compute_authwit_nullifier(on_behalf_of, inner_hash);
context.push_nullifier(nullifier);
}

/**
* Assert that `on_behalf_of` have authorized the current call in the authentication registry
* Assert that `on_behalf_of` has authorized the current call in the authentication registry
*
* Computing the `inner_hash` using the `msg_sender`, `selector` and `args_hash` and then making a call out to the
* Compute the `inner_hash` using the `msg_sender`, `selector` and `args_hash` and then make a call out to the
* `on_behalf_of` contract to verify that the `inner_hash` is valid.
*
* Note that the authentication registry will take the `msg_sender` into account as the consumer, so this will only
* work if the `msg_sender` is the same as the `consumer` when the `message_hash` was inserted into the registry.
*
* @param on_behalf_of The address that have authorized the current call
* @param on_behalf_of The address that has allegedly authorized the current call
*/
// docs:start:assert_current_call_valid_authwit_public
pub unconstrained fn assert_current_call_valid_authwit_public(
Expand All @@ -266,15 +266,15 @@ pub unconstrained fn assert_current_call_valid_authwit_public(
// docs:end:assert_current_call_valid_authwit_public

/**
* Assert that `on_behalf_of` have authorized a speicifc `inner_hash` in the authentication registry
* Assert that `on_behalf_of` has authorized a specific `inner_hash` in the authentication registry
*
* Computing the `inner_hash` using the `msg_sender`, `selector` and `args_hash` and then making a call out to the
* Compute the `inner_hash` using the `msg_sender`, `selector` and `args_hash` and then make a call out to the
* `on_behalf_of` contract to verify that the `inner_hash` is valid.
*
* Note that the authentication registry will take the `msg_sender` into account as the consumer, so this will only
* work if the `msg_sender` is the same as the `consumer` when the `message_hash` was inserted into the registry.
*
* @param on_behalf_of The address that have authorized the `inner_hash`
* @param on_behalf_of The address that has allegedly authorized the `inner_hash`
*/
pub unconstrained fn assert_inner_hash_valid_authwit_public(
context: &mut PublicContext,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -334,11 +334,11 @@ pub fn compute_inner_authwit_hash<let N: u32>(args: [Field; N]) -> Field {
}

/**
* Computs the `authwit_nullifier` for a specific `on_behalf_of` and `inner_hash`
* Computes the `authwit_nullifier` for a specific `on_behalf_of` and `inner_hash`
*
* Using the `on_behalf_of` and the `inner_hash` to ensure that the nullifier is siloed for a specific `on_behalf_of`.
*
* @param on_behalf_of The address that have authorized the `inner_hash`
* @param on_behalf_of The address that has authorized the `inner_hash`
* @param inner_hash The hash of the message to authorize
*/
pub fn compute_authwit_nullifier(on_behalf_of: AztecAddress, inner_hash: Field) -> Field {
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ contract Token {
}

let from_ovpk_m = get_public_keys(from).ovpk_m;
// TODO: constrain encryption below - we are using unconstrained here only becuase of the following Noir issue
// TODO: constrain encryption below - we are using unconstrained here only because of the following Noir issue
// https://github.com/noir-lang/noir/issues/5771
storage.balances.at(from).sub(from, U128::from_integer(amount)).emit(
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained(&mut context, from_ovpk_m, from, from),
Expand Down
Loading