Remove the sha256t::Hash type
#2717
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tcharding
changed the title
sha256t::Hash type
github-actions
bot
added
C-bitcoin
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8826416322Details
💛 - Coveralls |
tcharding
force-pushed
the
04-25-tagged-hashes-rm-generic
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1c84f5b
to
743b61e
Compare
In `bitcoin` we never use the `sha256t::Hash` type directly but only as an underlying generic type that holds the tagging logic. To get tagged hash types we currently use the `sha256t_hash_newtype` macro. Assuming other users implement tagged hashing as we do in `rust-bitcoin` then the `sha256t::Hash` type currently serves only as a type to implement `Tag::engine` on - but as long as there exists a way to get the pre-tagged engine then we do not actually need the type. If we assume all users will use a provided macro to define tagged hashes then we have two options. This PR implements the first option. 1. In the `NewTypeHash::engine` function return a pre-tagged `sha256::HashEngine`. 2. Have callers of the macro define a new engine type as well as a new hash type, then we can put the tagging logic in the `Default` implementation of the new engine. Remove the `sha256t::Hash` type, and the `Tag` trait. Modify the `sha256_hash_newtype` macro to match and just implement the tagging logic in the `engine` function. Add unit tests to make sure we correctly handle the forward/backward attribute. `rust-bitcoin` includes test already that verify this patch.
tcharding
force-pushed
the
04-25-tagged-hashes-rm-generic
branch
from
743b61e
to
2c73f7e
Compare
apoelstra
reviewed
Apr 25, 2024
| @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ const UTXO_3: P2trUtxo = P2trUtxo { | |||
| use std::collections::BTreeMap; | |||
| use std::str::FromStr; | |||
|
|
|||
| use bitcoin::hashes::Hash; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In 2c73f7e:
Can you add as _ here?
apoelstra
reviewed
Apr 25, 2024
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl_message_from_hash!(TapSighash); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In 2c73f7e:
Why does this go away?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a mistake, right there. I had a feeling something was wrong with the Message::from_digest instead of Message::from changes. And I knew you'd catch it in review. Sorry to lean on you like that, I've literally done various combinations of all these hashes changes like 10 times over the last two weeks.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I pulled the concept in this out of #2708 and attempted to reduce the scope.
In
bitcoinwe never use thesha256t::Hashtype directly but only as an underlying generic type that holds the tagging logic. To get tagged hash types we currently use thesha256t_hash_newtypemacro.Assuming other users implement tagged hashing as we do in
rust-bitcointhen thesha256t::Hashtype currently serves only as a type to implementTag::engineon - but as long as there exists a way to get the pre-tagged engine then we do not actually need the type.If we assume all users will use a provided macro to define tagged hashes then we have two options. This PR implements the first option and #2719 demonstrates the second.
In the
NewTypeHash::enginefunction return a pre-taggedsha256::HashEngine.Have callers of the macro define a new engine type as well as a new hash type, then we can put the tagging logic in the
Defaultimplementation of the new engine.Remove the
sha256t::Hashtype, and theTagtrait. Modify thesha256_hash_newtypemacro to more closely mimichash_newtype!and just implement the tagging logic in theenginefunction.Add unit tests to make sure we correctly handle the forward/backward attribute.
rust-bitcoinincludes test already that verify this patch.