* merkletree: add keypath circuit
* merkletree-circuit: implement proof of existence verification in-circuit
* parametrize max_depth at the tree circuit
* Constrain selectors in-circuit
* implement merketree nonexistence proof circuit, and add edgecase tests
* add non-existence proofs documentation in the mdbook, mv EMPTY->EMPTY_VALUE & NULL->EMPTY_HASH, dependency clean and public exposure methods
* review comments, some extra polishing and add a test that expects wrong proofs to fail
* Add circuit to check only merkleproofs-of-existence
With this, the merkletree_circuit module offers two different circuits:
- `MerkleProofCircuit`: allows to verify both proofs of existence and proofs
non-existence with the same circuit.
- `MerkleProofExistenceCircuit`: allows to verify proofs of existence only.
In this way, if only proofs of existence are needed,
`MerkleProofExistenceCircuit` should be used, which requires less amount
of constraints than `MerkleProofCircuit`.
* Code review
---------
Co-authored-by: Ahmad <root@ahmadafuni.com>
* add initial counter setup
We can extend it to also count the POD operations or other kind of logic
that we might want to count.
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Afuni <root@ahmadafuni.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Afuni <root@ahmadafuni.com>
* sync spec & code
* move primitives (merkletree) into the backend
* comment on the ops spec and link to issue #108
* typo
* fix github-ci mdbook-publish pages
* Custom statements on backend
* Add support for custom statements and deductions on backend
* typo checker smh
* clean up match statement
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Afuni <root@ahmadafuni.com>
* clean up more match statement
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Afuni <root@ahmadafuni.com>
* delete done todo
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Afuni <root@ahmadafuni.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Ahmad Afuni <root@ahmadafuni.com>
* limit the number of StatementTmpl in CustomPredicate:
- add constructor method for CustomPredicate
- make size checks at the CustomPredicate creation, so that once instantiated we can assume that contains valid data
This resolves#79
* Update tests to use new interface
---------
Co-authored-by: Ahmad <root@ahmadafuni.com>
At the middleware we were defining some types that actually are dependant on the
backend no matter how we define them in the middleware.
For example, we were hardcoding the `Hash` and `Value` types and their related
behaviour (eg. `.to_fields()`) to be based on the length of 4 field elements,
but that's not a choice of the middleware, and in fact this is determined by the
backend itself. On the same time, those types and related methods do not belong
to the backend, since conceptually they are part of the middleware reasoning.
The intention of this PR is not to prematurely abstract the library, but to
avoid inconsistencies where a type or parameter is defined in the middleware to
have certain carachteristic and later in the backend it gets used differently.
The idea is that those types and parameters (eg. lengths) have a single source
of truth in the code; and in the case of the "base types" (hash, value, etc)
this is determined by the backend being used under the hood, not by a choice of
the middleware parameters.
The idea with this approach, is that the frontend & middleware should not need
to import the proving library used by the backend (eg. plonky2, plonky3, etc).
As mentioned earlier, the `Hash` and `Value` types are types belonging at the
middleware, and is the middleware who reasons about them, but depending on the
backend being used, the `Hash` and `Value` types will have different sizes. So
it's the backend being used who actually defines their nature under the hood.
For example with a plonky2 backend, these types will have a length of 4 field
elements, whereas with a plonky3 backend they will have a length of 8 field
eleements.
Note that his approach does not introduce new traits or abstract code, just
makes use of rust features to define 'base types' that are being used in the
middleware.
