diff cleanup

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1396,7 +1396,7 @@
 * Confusing "Unknown complete address" error ([#2967](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2967)) ([3a8f54a](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/3a8f54a8330620669380cbd1b06551aa10703ec3))
 * Force jest to quit, otherwise CI can rack up to 3hrs of credits per job. ([#2899](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2899)) ([ba2f671](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/ba2f671c79ac3c2aa19c769c3db56a27a7e0854f))
 * Honk sumcheck performance ([#2925](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2925)) ([5fbfe6e](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/5fbfe6eeccdb23f734fb36f30d1e33340f9fb07a))
-* pending note hashes contract using the wrong number of arguments ([#2959](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2959)) ([655c322](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/655c322ab0e71074b3f747c95bfafbd6b7008217))
+* Pending commitments contract using the wrong number of arguments ([#2959](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2959)) ([655c322](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/655c322ab0e71074b3f747c95bfafbd6b7008217))
 * Prettierignore in boxes ([#2902](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2902)) ([8f7a200](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/8f7a200e809a9dc6ac8e1beaf3bbf1fd83e5a1fb))
 * Randomness in `AddressNote` ([#2965](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2965)) ([4dc49a9](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/4dc49a92428216928d918d893c40745957e5b983))
 * Yarn lock ([#2923](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/issues/2923)) ([7042bc6](https://github.com/AztecProtocol/aztec-packages/commit/7042bc6130f8473b6c59bf9a0146ea8b2c3c7483))

docs/docs/developers/contracts/writing_contracts/functions/context.md

@@ -105,18 +105,18 @@ The return values are a set of values that are returned from an applications exe
 
 <!-- TODO(maddiaa): leaving as todo until their is further clarification around their implementation in the protocol -->
 
-### New note hashes
+### New Note Hashes
 
-New note hashes contains an array of all of the commitments created in the current execution context.
+New note hashes contains an array of all of the note hashes created in the current execution context.
 
 ### New Nullifiers
 
 New nullifiers contains an array of the new nullifiers emitted from the current execution context.
 
-### Nullified Commitments
+### Nullified Note Hashes
 
-Nullified commitments is an optimization for introduced to help reduce state growth. There are often cases where commitments are created and nullified within the same transaction.
-In these cases there is no reason that these commitments should take up space on the node's commitment/nullifier trees. Keeping track of nullified commitments allows us to "cancel out" and prove these cases.
+Nullified note hashes is an optimization for introduced to help reduce state growth. There are often cases where note hashes are created and nullified within the same transaction.
+In these cases there is no reason that these note hashes should take up space on the node's commitment/nullifier trees. Keeping track of nullified note hashes allows us to "cancel out" and prove these cases.
 
 ### Private Call Stack
 

docs/docs/developers/contracts/writing_contracts/historical_data/slow_updates_tree/main.md

@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ graph TD
         CurrentM --> Value1[Current Value 1]
         CurrentM --> Value2[Current Value 2]
         CurrentM --> ValueN[Current Value N]
-        Pending --> PendingM[pending note hash 1]
+        Pending --> PendingM[Pending Commitment 1]
         PendingM --> PValue1[Pending Value 1]
         PendingM --> PValue2[Pending Value 2]
         PendingM --> PValueN[Pending Value N]

docs/docs/developers/debugging/sandbox-errors.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Remember that for each function call (i.e. each item in the call stack), there i
 Cannot call contract at address(0x0) privately.
 This error may also happen when you deploy a new contract and the contract data hash is inconsistent to the expected contract address.
 
-#### 2005 - PRIVATE_KERNEL\_\_NEW_COMMITMENTS_PROHIBITED_IN_STATIC_CALL
+#### 2005 - PRIVATE_KERNEL\_\_NEW_NOTE_HASHES_PROHIBITED_IN_STATIC_CALL
 
 For static calls, new note hashes aren't allowed
 
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ For static calls, no contract storage change requests are allowed.
 
 Same as [3022](#3022---public_kernel__public_call_stack_contract_storage_updates_prohibited_for_static_call), no contract changes are allowed for static calls.
 
-#### 3026 - PUBLIC_KERNEL\_\_NEW_COMMITMENTS_PROHIBITED_IN_STATIC_CALL
+#### 3026 - PUBLIC_KERNEL\_\_NOTE_HASHES_PROHIBITED_IN_STATIC_CALL
 
 For static calls, no new note hashes or nullifiers can be added to the state.
 

docs/docs/learn/concepts/storage/storage_slots.md

@@ -39,8 +39,7 @@ If we include the storage slot, as part of the note whose commitment is stored i
 Similarly to how we siloed the public storage slots, we can silo our private storage by hashing the logical storage slot together with the note content.
 
 ```rust
-note_hash  = H(...note_content);
-commitment = H(logical_storage_slot, note_hash);
+note_hash = H(logical_storage_slot, note_content_hash);
 ```
 
 This siloing (there will be more) is done in the application circuit, since it is not necessary for security of the network (but only the application). 
@@ -53,7 +52,7 @@ When reading the values for these notes, the application circuit can then constr
 To ensure that one contract cannot insert storage that other contracts would believe is theirs, we do a second siloing by hashing the `commitment` with the contract address. 
 
 ```rust
-siloed_note_hash = H(contract_address, commitment);
+siloed_note_hash = H(contract_address, note_hash);
 ```
 
 By doing this address-siloing at the kernel circuit we *force* the inserted commitments to include and not lie about the `contract_address`.