* add CheckpointList::new_up_to(limit: NetworkUpgrade)
* if checkpoint_sync is false, limit checkpoints to Sapling
* update tests for CheckpointList and chain::init
Per discussion where @yaahc suggested that it would be simpler to delete this function entirely and treat it as an implementation detail.
Co-authored-by: Jane Lusby <jlusby42@gmail.com>
Fixes a race condition between the height and hash tree updates, when
they are executed simultaneously with GetDepth. `get_tip` uses the height
tree, but `get` uses the hash tree.
* attempt to use zcashconsensus crate in zebra-script
* boop
* update verify fn to use zebra types
* a bit more cleanup
* cleanup
* more
* beep boop
* fix renamed member
* cleaning
* get a real branch id
* remove as of yet unneeded api
* Update zebra-chain/src/transaction.rs
* Update zebra-chain/src/transaction.rs
* more cleanup
* oops wrong dep section
* use a tuple to communicate arg association
* update to use published version of zcash_script
* fix new compiler error
* install llvm on windows
* fix bindgen bug????
* try to get docker file to win
* okay try everything
* fix windows build maybe
* always download choco
* fix paths for moved types
* try a different error message
* try convenience script
* try installing just llvm
* add back one more
* try installing some headers
* try a diff package
* try everything
* remove the minimum
* try newer docker builder image
* cleanup docker image
* cleanup extra ci step
The ShieldedData container for the spend and output descriptions of a
transaction does *not* move, because it's encoding transaction
structure. A good sign that this is the right factoring is that the
transaction module now only needs to pull in sapling::{Spend, Output}
and not all the internals.
This is the first in a sequence of changes that change the block:: items
to not include Block as a prefix in their name, in accordance with the
Rust API guidelines.
This Merkle tree is the SHA256d one used only for including transactions
in a block, so it should be kept there in order to not be confused with
other Merkle trees (like the note commitment trees).
It's not accurate to call it a LightClientRootHash, because it's not
always a root has for a light client -- sometimes it's a different kind
of root hash.