encrypted_note_emission
Standalone Functions
compute_payload
compute_payload(context, note, ovsk_app, ovpk, recipient, sender, );
/ Computes private note log payload
Parameters
| Name | Type |
|---|---|
| context | PrivateContext |
| note | Note |
| ovsk_app | Field |
| ovpk | OvpkM |
| recipient | AztecAddress |
| sender | AztecAddress |
compute_payload_unconstrained
compute_payload_unconstrained(context, note, ovpk, recipient, sender, );
Parameters
| Name | Type |
|---|---|
| context | PrivateContext |
| note | Note |
| ovpk | OvpkM |
| recipient | AztecAddress |
| sender | AztecAddress |
encode_and_encrypt_note
encode_and_encrypt_note(context, ovpk, recipient, // TODO, we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address?
sender, );
If you get weird behavior it might be because of it.
Parameters
| Name | Type |
|---|---|
| context | &mut PrivateContext |
| ovpk | OvpkM |
| recipient | AztecAddress |
| // TODO | We need this because to compute a tagging secret |
| we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address? | |
| sender | AztecAddress |
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained(context, ovpk, recipient, // TODO, we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address?
sender, );
Parameters
| Name | Type |
|---|---|
| context | &mut PrivateContext |
| ovpk | OvpkM |
| recipient | AztecAddress |
| // TODO | We need this because to compute a tagging secret |
| we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address? | |
| sender | AztecAddress |