**Update:** Pushed additional changes based on the review comments.
**This pull request fixes various spelling mistakes in this
repository.**
Most of the changes are contained in the first **3** commits:
- `Fix spelling mistakes in comments and docs`
- `Fix spelling mistakes in test names`
- `Fix spelling mistakes in error messages, panic messages, logs and
tracing`
Other source code spelling mistakes are separated into individual
commits for easier reviewing:
- `Fix the spelling of 'authority'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'REASONABLE_HEADERS_IN_JUSTIFICATION_ANCESTRY'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'prev_enqueud_messages'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'endpoint'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'children'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSiblingSovereignAccount'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PenpalSudoAccount'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'insufficient'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PalletXcmExtrinsicsBenchmark'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'subtracted'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'CandidatePendingAvailability'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'exclusive'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'until'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'discriminator'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'nonexistent'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'subsystem'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'indices'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'committed'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'topology'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'response'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'beneficiary'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'formatted'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'UNKNOWN_PROOF_REQUEST'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'succeeded'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'reopened'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'proposer'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'InstantiationNonce'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'depositor'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'expiration'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'phantom'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'AggregatedKeyValue'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'randomness'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'defendant'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'AquaticMammal'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'transactions'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'PassingTracingSubscriber'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'TxSignaturePayload'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'versioning'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'descendant'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'overridden'`
- `Fix the spelling of 'network'`
Let me know if this structure is adequate.
**Note:** The usage of the words `Merkle`, `Merkelize`, `Merklization`,
`Merkelization`, `Merkleization`, is somewhat inconsistent but I left it
as it is.
~~**Note:** In some places the term `Receival` is used to refer to
message reception, IMO `Reception` is the correct word here, but I left
it as it is.~~
~~**Note:** In some places the term `Overlayed` is used instead of the
more acceptable version `Overlaid` but I also left it as it is.~~
~~**Note:** In some places the term `Applyable` is used instead of the
correct version `Applicable` but I also left it as it is.~~
**Note:** Some usage of British vs American english e.g. `judgement` vs
`judgment`, `initialise` vs `initialize`, `optimise` vs `optimize` etc.
are both present in different places, but I suppose that's
understandable given the number of contributors.
~~**Note:** There is a spelling mistake in `.github/CODEOWNERS` but it
triggers errors in CI when I make changes to it, so I left it as it
is.~~
Introduces `CryptoBytes` type defined as:
```rust
pub struct CryptoBytes<const N: usize, Tag = ()>(pub [u8; N], PhantomData<fn() -> Tag>);
```
The type implements a bunch of methods and traits which are typically
expected from a byte array newtype
(NOTE: some of the methods and trait implementations IMO are a bit
redundant, but I decided to maintain them all to not change too much
stuff in this PR)
It also introduces two (generic) typical consumers of `CryptoBytes`:
`PublicBytes` and `SignatureBytes`.
```rust
pub struct PublicTag;
pub PublicBytes<const N: usize, CryptoTag> = CryptoBytes<N, (PublicTag, CryptoTag)>;
pub struct SignatureTag;
pub SignatureBytes<const N: usize, CryptoTag> = CryptoBytes<N, (SignatureTag, CryptoTag)>;
```
Both of them use a tag to differentiate the two types at a higher level.
Downstream specializations will further specialize using a dedicated
crypto tag. For example in ECDSA:
```rust
pub struct EcdsaTag;
pub type Public = PublicBytes<PUBLIC_KEY_SERIALIZED_SIZE, EcdsaTag>;
pub type Signature = PublicBytes<PUBLIC_KEY_SERIALIZED_SIZE, EcdsaTag>;
```
Overall we have a cleaner and most importantly **consistent** code for
all the types involved
All these details are opaque to the end user which can use `Public` and
`Signature` for the cryptos as before
This is the significant step to make BEEFY client able to handle both
ECDSA and (ECDSA, BLS) type signature. The idea is having BEEFY Client
generic on crypto types makes migration to new types smoother.
This makes the BEEFY Keystore generic over AuthorityId and extends its
tests to cover the case when the AuthorityId is of type (ECDSA,
BLS12-377)
---------
Co-authored-by: Davide Galassi <davxy@datawok.net>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>
Many clippy lints usually enforced by `-Dcomplexity` and `-Dcorrectness`
are not caught by CI as they are gated by `features`, like
`runtime-benchmarks`, while the clippy CI job runs with only the default
features for all targets.
This PR also adds a CI step to run clippy with `--all-features` to
ensure the code quality is maintained behind feature gates from now on.
To improve local development, clippy lints are downgraded to warnings,
but they still will result in an error at CI due to the `-Dwarnings`
rustflag.
---------
Co-authored-by: Liam Aharon <liam.aharon@hotmail.com>
BEEFY ECDSA signatures are on keccak has of the messages. As such we can
not simply call
`EcdsaBlsPair::verify(signature.as_inner_ref(), msg,
self.as_inner_ref())`
because that invokes ecdsa default verification which perfoms blake2
hash which we don't want.
This bring up the second issue makes: This makes `sign` and `verify`
function in `pair_crypto` useless, at least for BEEFY use case.
Moreover, there is no obvious clean way to generate the signature given
that pair_crypto does not exposes `sign_prehashed`. You could in theory
query the keystore for the pair (could you?), invoke `to_raw` and
re-generate each sub-pair and sign using each. But that sounds extremely
anticlimactic and will be frow upon by auditors . So I appreciate any
alternative suggestion.
---------
Co-authored-by: Davide Galassi <davxy@datawok.net>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>
Next step in process of making BEEFY being able to generate both ECDSA
and BLS signature after #1705. It allows BEEFY to use a pair of ECDSA
and BLS key as a AuthorityId.
---------
Co-authored-by: Davide Galassi <davxy@datawok.net>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>
BEEFY needs two cryptographic keys at the same time. Validators should
sign BEEFY payload using both ECDSA and BLS key. The network will gossip
a payload which contains a valid ECDSA key. The prover nodes aggregate
the BLS keys if aggregation fails to verifies the validator which
provided a valid ECDSA signature but an invalid BLS signature is subject
to slashing.
As such BEEFY session should be initiated with both key. Currently there
is no straight forward way of doing so, beside having a session with
RuntimeApp corresponding to a crypto scheme contains both keys.
This pull request implement a generic paired_crypto scheme as well as
implementing it for (ECDSA, BLS) pair.
---------
Co-authored-by: Davide Galassi <davxy@datawok.net>
Co-authored-by: Robert Hambrock <roberthambrock@gmail.com>
Dcompoze