note
Standalone Functions
assert_note_exists
assert_note_exists(context, note_hash_counter);
TODO: it feels like this existence check is in the wrong place. In fact, why is it needed at all? Under what circumstances have we found a non-existent note being emitted accidentally?
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | PrivateContext |
note_hash_counter | u32 |
compute_note_log
compute_note_log(note, storage_slot, recipient, sender, );
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
note | Note |
storage_slot | Field |
recipient | AztecAddress |
sender | AztecAddress |
compute_partial_note_log
compute_partial_note_log(note, storage_slot, recipient, sender, );
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
note | Note |
storage_slot | Field |
recipient | AztecAddress |
sender | AztecAddress |
compute_log
compute_log(note, storage_slot, recipient, sender, msg_type, );
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
note | Note |
storage_slot | Field |
recipient | AztecAddress |
sender | AztecAddress |
msg_type | u64 |
compute_note_log_unconstrained
compute_note_log_unconstrained(note, storage_slot, recipient, sender, );
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
note | Note |
storage_slot | Field |
recipient | AztecAddress |
sender | AztecAddress |
encode_and_encrypt_note
encode_and_encrypt_note(context, recipient, // We need this because to compute a tagging secret, we require a sender, );
/ private logs.
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | &mut PrivateContext |
recipient | AztecAddress |
// We need this because to compute a tagging secret | |
we require a sender | sender |
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained(context, recipient, // We need this because to compute a tagging secret, we require a sender, );
/// Only use this function in scenarios where the recipient not receiving the note is an acceptable outcome.
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | &mut PrivateContext |
recipient | AztecAddress |
// We need this because to compute a tagging secret | |
we require a sender | sender |