refactor: dropping noteHashLeafIndexMap #19443
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Contributor
Author
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
benesjan
force-pushed
the
01-08-refactor_dropping_notehashleafindexmap
branch
from
69f815a to
8692d8d
Compare
AztecBot
force-pushed
the
01-08-refactor_dropping_notehashleafindexmap
branch
from
8692d8d to
fddec79
Compare
benesjan
force-pushed
the
01-08-refactor_dropping_notehashleafindexmap
branch
from
fddec79 to
45066ab
Compare
This was referenced Jan 9, 2026
nventuro
approved these changes
Jan 12, 2026
Contributor
nventuro
left a comment
nventuro
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lovely. I'm checking with the alpha team if the new method is slower.
Comment on lines
-73
to
-74
| async getNoteHashMembershipWitness(leafIndex: bigint): Promise<MembershipWitness<typeof NOTE_HASH_TREE_HEIGHT>> { | ||
| const path = await this.node.getNoteHashSiblingPath(this.blockNumber, leafIndex); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, this naming mismatch was quite confusing.
Collaborator
Flakey Tests🤖 says: This CI run detected 3 tests that failed, but were tolerated due to a .test_patterns.yml entry. |
AztecBot
force-pushed
the
01-08-refactor_dropping_notehashleafindexmap
branch
from
7ecd252 to
83a369a
Compare
Tracking the note hash leaf indexes during execution is unnecessary because when building the kernel hints we are able to obtain the note hash membership witness directly by value instead of by index. I guess the API obtaining the witness by value might be a bit slower since we first need to find where in the tree the it is while index directly points into a tree. But even if this is the case it doesn't seem to be worth the complexity (if the slowness turns out to be a problem we can always store a map from note hash to index in the node given that the note hashes are unique). Decided to do this when trying to tackle [F-218](https://linear.app/aztec-labs/issue/F-218/remove-note-and-nullif-indexes-from-note-and-event-storage).
AztecBot
force-pushed
the
01-08-refactor_dropping_notehashleafindexmap
branch
from
83a369a to
1e1c8b8
Compare
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2026
Tracking the note hash leaf indexes during execution is unnecessary because when building the kernel hints we are able to obtain the note hash membership witness directly by value instead of by index. I guess the API obtaining the witness by value might be a bit slower since we first need to find where in the tree the it is while index directly points into a tree. But even if this is the case it doesn't seem to be worth the complexity (if the slowness turns out to be a problem we can always store a map from note hash to index in the node given that the note hashes are unique). Decided to do this when trying to tackle [F-218](https://linear.app/aztec-labs/issue/F-218/remove-note-and-nullif-indexes-from-note-and-event-storage).
AztecBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2026
As Martin mentioned [here](#19327 (comment)) makes sense to have the reorg handling be atomic. In this PR I tackle that. Note that this PR doesn't need to be in stack with #19443 but #19451 depends on both so putting this one into stack was the only way to unblock myself working on #19451.
AztecBot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2026
As Martin mentioned [here](#19327 (comment)) makes sense to have the reorg handling be atomic. In this PR I tackle that. Note that this PR doesn't need to be in stack with #19443 but #19451 depends on both so putting this one into stack was the only way to unblock myself working on #19451.
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2026
As Martin mentioned [here](#19327 (comment)) makes sense to have the reorg handling be atomic. In this PR I tackle that. Note that this PR doesn't need to be in stack with #19443 but #19451 depends on both so putting this one into stack was the only way to unblock myself working on #19451.
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.
Tracking the note hash leaf indexes during execution is unnecessary because when building the kernel hints we are able to obtain the note hash membership witness directly by value instead of by index. I guess the API obtaining the witness by value might be a bit slower since we first need to find where in the tree the it is while index directly points into a tree. But even if this is the case it doesn't seem to be worth the complexity (if the slowness turns out to be a problem we can always store a map from note hash to index in the node given that the note hashes are unique).
Decided to do this when trying to tackle F-218.