docs: apply review feedback to blobstream rollups#1541
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent update transitions from using "share commitment" to "blob share commitment" for constructing Blobstream rollups. This change enhances the clarity and efficiency of rollup construction, signaling a shift in methodology and the need for new supporting tools. Changes
Recent Review DetailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Files selected for processing (1)
Additional Context UsedLanguageTool (221)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
Out of diff range and nitpick comments (10)
developers/blobstream-rollups.md (10)
20-20: The note about the current unavailability of the "blob share commitment" method should be highlighted or emphasized to ensure it catches the reader's attention.
61-61: Consider adding a projected timeline or a link to a roadmap for the development of the necessary tooling for generating/verifying blob share commitment proofs. This would provide clarity and manage expectations for the users.
Line range hint
102-102: There is an extra space before "This might require waiting...". It should be removed for consistency.- This might require waiting for a few hours, depending on the batches size + This might require waiting for a few hours, depending on the batches size
Line range hint
203-203: There is an extra space before "This could be done via proving the shares...". It should be removed to maintain consistent formatting.- This could be done via proving the shares that contain the data to the + This could be done via proving the shares that contain the data to the
Line range hint
205-205: There is an extra space before "And, a binary Merkle proof of the row root...". It should be removed for consistency.- And, a binary Merkle proof of the row root to the data root. + And, a binary Merkle proof of the row root to the data root.
Line range hint
357-357: There is an extra space before "The verification process of this should...". It should be removed to maintain consistent formatting.- The verification process of this should accept a commitment as input so that + The verification process of this should accept a commitment as input so that
Line range hint
359-359: There is an extra space before "The commitment can be the data root and...". It should be removed for consistency.- The commitment can be the data root and the sequence of spans. + The commitment can be the data root and the sequence of spans.
Line range hint
360-360: There is an extra space before "And, when the rollup data is proven inside...". It should be removed to maintain consistent formatting.- And, when the rollup data is proven inside the circuit to the data root, + And, when the rollup data is proven inside the circuit to the data root,
Line range hint
362-362: There is an extra space before "Similarly, the data's location is asserted...". It should be removed for consistency.- Similarly, the data's location is asserted to be the same as the input + Similarly, the data's location is asserted to be the same as the input
Line range hint
364-364: There is an extra space before "These arguments are the ones used in the...". It should be removed to maintain consistent formatting.- These arguments are the ones used in the sequence of spans verification in (2). + These arguments are the ones used in the sequence of spans verification in (2).
3 participants
Overview
Applies PR review feedback.
Summary by CodeRabbit