TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions #3417

str4d · 2018-07-25T09:52:46Z

This PR includes zcash/librustzcash#24, and will create a testnet chain split once merged into master (and once a Sapling transaction is mined).

This means the API will work if you only have a SaplingExtendedSpendingKey, as will be the case with ZIP 32.

ebfull

ACK, but if it's not too much trouble I'd love to see a check that all of the anchors are the same (as a stop-gap for a protocol change to enforce this).

…ical This reduces the amount of information that is leaked by the choice of anchor. In future we will make a protocol change to enforce that all inputs use the same anchor.

str4d · 2018-07-27T07:50:16Z

Addressed @ebfull's comment.

daira · 2018-07-30T12:22:01Z

I'd like to see this merged together with a PR to use a version of sapling-crypto that includes zcash/sapling-crypto#80 , so that we don't inadvertently end up with two chain splits. The rationale is that this rule change will create a split on the next Sapling transaction, whereas the RedDSA change will only do so if someone creates a nonstandard signature (that will never be created by an unmodified zcashd).

daira

ut(ACK+cov)

daira · 2018-07-30T12:27:21Z

src/gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp

+    auto fvk_from = sk_from.full_viewing_key();
+
+    auto sk = libzcash::SaplingSpendingKey::random();
+    auto xsk = sk.expanded_spending_key();


Rename this to expsk.

daira · 2018-07-30T12:34:24Z

src/transaction_builder.cpp

+#include <librustzcash.h>
+
+SpendDescriptionInfo::SpendDescriptionInfo(
+    libzcash::SaplingExpandedSpendingKey xsk,


Rename to expsk, also the member variable.

daira · 2018-07-30T12:38:06Z

src/transaction_builder.cpp

+    CTxOut out(value, scriptPubKey);
+    mtx.vout.push_back(out);
+    return true;
+}


Should there be a similar method that just takes a CTxOut, in case a caller wants to use a funky script?

If someone needs that in future, they can add it.

daira · 2018-07-30T12:41:01Z

src/transaction_builder.cpp

+        change -= tOut.nValue;
+    }
+    if (change < 0) {
+        return boost::none;


Maybe we should return a value that indicates why building the tx failed?

Were this Rust, I'd be returning a Result<CTransaction, Reason>. The equivalent in C++ is very messy; probably the simplest is to return a std::pair<boost::optional<CTransaction>, Reason>, or we could add a GetFailureReason() method that exposes an internal variable we set before returning from Build().

I would be inclined to implement a Result class.

xsk will be used for ZIP 32 extended spending keys, so renaming here to reduce confusion.

ebfull · 2018-07-30T13:28:49Z

src/zcash/IncrementalMerkleTree.hpp

@@ -170,6 +170,10 @@ friend class IncrementalMerkleTree<Depth, Hash>;
        return tree.last();
    }

+    uint64_t position() const {
+        return tree.size() - 1;


NB: an IncrementalWitness cannot be constructed such that tree.size() is 0, so this will never underflow.

ebfull · 2018-07-31T04:04:32Z

Pushed some commits to adopt zcash/librustzcash#26 into this PR and fix a bug in the return value from SendChangeTo.

str4d · 2018-07-31T11:33:58Z

ACK on the two commits @ebfull pushed.

daira

ACK b7b088c and 04ed758 .

Eirik0 · 2018-07-31T22:06:05Z

Overall looks good.

One general comment that I have is that it would be nice if the methods in TransactionBuilder returned *this rather than bool or void. Because this is not yet used in production it is hard to tell if this makes TransactionBuilder easier to use. Returning a bool is useful if we are able to write code to recover from whatever has caused the failure. If we are not able to recover, we may as well throw some error rather than return bool as this can include more information. Similarly, are we able to recover if .Build() returns none? Would we be able to provide the end user more information if we throw an error in .Build() rather than returning none?

str4d · 2018-07-31T22:14:35Z

Useful comments, but we can look into ergonomics after we've used this in z_sendmany (and thus have more feedback from actually using the API).

@zkbot r+

zkbot · 2018-07-31T22:14:36Z

📌 Commit 04ed758 has been approved by str4d

zkbot · 2018-07-31T22:14:41Z

⌛ Testing commit 04ed758 with merge f87011a511eb4a0b7c923e1fc6802bd7c820ff6c...

zkbot · 2018-08-01T00:11:44Z

💔 Test failed - pr-merge

bitcartel · 2018-08-01T03:42:00Z

Tests fail when running locally

./zcash-gtest --gtest_filter=TransactionBuilder.*
Note: Google Test filter = TransactionBuilder.*
[==========] Running 7 tests from 1 test case.
[----------] Global test environment set-up.
[----------] 7 tests from TransactionBuilder
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.Invoke
gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp:54: Failure
Value of: ContextualCheckTransaction(tx1, state, 2, 0)
  Actual: false
Expected: true
gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp:55: Failure
      Expected: state.GetRejectReason()
      Which is: "bad-txns-sapling-output-description-invalid"
To be equal to: ""
gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp:78: Failure
      Expected: static_cast<bool>(maybe_tx2)
      Which is: false
To be equal to: true
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.Invoke (1831 ms)
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.ThrowsOnTransparentInputWithoutKeyStore
[       OK ] TransactionBuilder.ThrowsOnTransparentInputWithoutKeyStore (0 ms)
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.RejectsInvalidTransparentOutput
[       OK ] TransactionBuilder.RejectsInvalidTransparentOutput (0 ms)
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.RejectsInvalidTransparentChangeAddress
[       OK ] TransactionBuilder.RejectsInvalidTransparentChangeAddress (0 ms)
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.FailsWithNegativeChange
gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp:172: Failure
Value of: static_cast<bool>(builder.Build())
  Actual: false
Expected: true
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.FailsWithNegativeChange (1566 ms)
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.ChangeOutput
gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp:225: Failure
      Expected: static_cast<bool>(maybe_tx)
      Which is: false
To be equal to: true
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.ChangeOutput (1603 ms)
[ RUN      ] TransactionBuilder.SetFee
gtest/test_transaction_builder.cpp:303: Failure
      Expected: static_cast<bool>(maybe_tx)
      Which is: false
To be equal to: true
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.SetFee (1580 ms)
[----------] 7 tests from TransactionBuilder (6581 ms total)

[----------] Global test environment tear-down
[==========] 7 tests from 1 test case ran. (6581 ms total)
[  PASSED  ] 3 tests.
[  FAILED  ] 4 tests, listed below:
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.Invoke
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.FailsWithNegativeChange
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.ChangeOutput
[  FAILED  ] TransactionBuilder.SetFee

 4 FAILED TESTS

ebfull · 2018-08-01T06:44:26Z

@bitcartel I haven't seen such failures.

I had to relocate ECC_Start() to avoid some kind of race condition in the test harness.

@zkbot r+

zkbot · 2018-08-01T06:44:27Z

📌 Commit a310f6c has been approved by ebfull

zkbot · 2018-08-01T06:44:32Z

⌛ Testing commit a310f6c with merge d84f14e...

TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions This PR includes zcash/librustzcash#24, and will create a testnet chain split once merged into master (and once a Sapling transaction is mined).

zkbot · 2018-08-01T08:29:18Z

☀️ Test successful - pr-merge
Approved by: ebfull
Pushing d84f14e to master...

daira · 2018-08-01T09:57:32Z

a310f6c cannot be the right fix for that race condition, surely? It's dependent on the order in which tests are run.

str4d · 2018-08-01T10:58:11Z

@daira I think the problem was the presence of a second call. I thought I was fixing this once and for all in 3fd0a26, but I missed one. Removing the call from all individual tests, and leaving it in the initializer, should be sufficient.

str4d added 3 commits July 24, 2018 14:54

Alter SaplingNote::nullifier() to take a SaplingFullViewingKey

66a519f

This means the API will work if you only have a SaplingExtendedSpendingKey, as will be the case with ZIP 32.

Expose note position in IncrementalMerkleWitness

70a7535

TransactionBuilder with support for creating Sapling-only transactions

e691e21

str4d added the NU1-sapling Network upgrade: Sapling-specific tasks label Jul 25, 2018

str4d added this to the v2.0.0 milestone Jul 25, 2018

ebfull approved these changes Jul 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

mdr0id requested a review from gtank July 26, 2018 20:58

str4d mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2018

Track Sapling notes and nullifiers in the wallet (in-memory only, no persistence to disk) #3422

Merged

mdr0id assigned gtank Jul 26, 2018

mdr0id requested review from daira and arielgabizon July 26, 2018 21:40

TransactionBuilder: Check that all anchors in a transaction are ident…

e5dc522

…ical This reduces the amount of information that is leaked by the choice of anchor. In future we will make a protocol change to enforce that all inputs use the same anchor.

Formatting

25bb05d

str4d force-pushed the sapling-tx-builder branch from f34ad0c to 25bb05d Compare July 27, 2018 10:17

str4d added 4 commits July 27, 2018 17:18

test: Move ECC_Start() call into src/gtest/main.cpp

3fd0a26

TransactionBuilder: Add support for transparent inputs and outputs

3466b46

TransactionBuilder: Add change output to transaction

45c0d1e

TransactionBuilder: Make fee configurable

a8dd4b0

str4d force-pushed the sapling-tx-builder branch from bac411d to a8dd4b0 Compare July 30, 2018 11:54

daira approved these changes Jul 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

Rename xsk to expsk

54a868c

xsk will be used for ZIP 32 extended spending keys, so renaming here to reduce confusion.

ebfull approved these changes Jul 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

Eirik0 self-requested a review July 30, 2018 23:18

ebfull added 2 commits July 30, 2018 21:59

Update librustzcash and sapling-crypto.

b7b088c

Fix bug in return value.

04ed758

ebfull approved these changes Jul 31, 2018

View reviewed changes

str4d changed the title ~~TransactionBuilder with support for creating Sapling-only transactions~~ TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions Jul 31, 2018

daira approved these changes Jul 31, 2018

View reviewed changes

Relocate ECC_Start() to avoid test failures.

a310f6c

zkbot merged commit a310f6c into zcash:master Aug 1, 2018

str4d deleted the sapling-tx-builder branch August 1, 2018 08:47

daira mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2018

[Sapling] Specify and implement the signature scheme for spend authorization #2853

Closed

6 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions #3417

TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions #3417

str4d commented Jul 25, 2018

ebfull left a comment

str4d commented Jul 27, 2018

daira commented Jul 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading

daira left a comment

daira Jul 30, 2018

daira Jul 30, 2018

daira Jul 30, 2018

str4d Jul 30, 2018

daira Jul 30, 2018

str4d Jul 30, 2018

daira Aug 1, 2018

ebfull Jul 30, 2018

ebfull commented Jul 31, 2018

str4d commented Jul 31, 2018

daira left a comment

Eirik0 commented Jul 31, 2018

str4d commented Jul 31, 2018

zkbot commented Jul 31, 2018

zkbot commented Jul 31, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

bitcartel commented Aug 1, 2018

ebfull commented Aug 1, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

daira commented Aug 1, 2018

str4d commented Aug 1, 2018

TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions #3417

TransactionBuilder for Sapling and transparent transactions #3417

Conversation

str4d commented Jul 25, 2018

ebfull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

str4d commented Jul 27, 2018

daira commented Jul 30, 2018 • edited Loading

daira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ebfull commented Jul 31, 2018

str4d commented Jul 31, 2018

daira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Eirik0 commented Jul 31, 2018

str4d commented Jul 31, 2018

zkbot commented Jul 31, 2018

zkbot commented Jul 31, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

bitcartel commented Aug 1, 2018

ebfull commented Aug 1, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

zkbot commented Aug 1, 2018

daira commented Aug 1, 2018

str4d commented Aug 1, 2018

daira commented Jul 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading