Conversation
* refactor: address remaining #3204 comments (standards module moves) Carries the #3204 follow-up cleanup on top of the unified authenticator: - [BREAKING] move the `note_tag` MASM module to `miden::standards::note::note_tag` - [BREAKING] move the `note_creator` component to the `utils` namespace and the Rust `NoteCreator` type to `account::note_creator` - re-export `create_note` from the basic-wallet interface - standardize the panic-condition wording in the kernel/protocol MASM doc comments and update the affected import sites and docs The authenticator doc comments in api.masm / native_account.masm and the CHANGELOG entry are kept consistent with the flag-based tracking design from the parent commit. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> * chore: small comment fixes * chore: re-trigger CI --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ency switch (#3520) * test(standards): pin the freeze-only actor asymmetry under RBAC * docs(standards): document the freeze-only actor pattern on Authority * changelog
* refactor: remove asset value from callback outputs * test: preserve callback value regression coverage * test: restore account callback value regression * Apply suggestions from code review * refactor: make callback wrappers consume inputs * docs: preserve callback changelog history --------- Co-authored-by: Philipp Gackstatter <18741416+PhilippGackstatter@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Bobbin Threadbare <43513081+bobbinth@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UfukNode <208284577+UfukNode@users.noreply.github.com>
…dings (#3463) The security/code-reviewer agents sometimes clear a section with prose like "None. I specifically tried and failed to break the following:" followed by bullets documenting what was ruled out. `_count_blocking_findings` only recognized an exact `- None.` bullet as an absence marker, so those diligence bullets were counted as real findings, producing a false "N blocking finding(s)" verdict even though the reviewer intended CLEAN. Require a blocking section's first content line to open with "None"/"N/A" (bare, bolded, or with a period-terminated explanation on the same line, but not a real finding like "None of the callers..." - there's no "." or end-of-line right after "None" there); once matched, the rest of the section is ignored. A stray absence marker anywhere else only skips itself, so a real finding followed by a later "- None." isn't double-counted. This is fail-open for the narrow case of a "None." opener genuinely followed by real findings. Both prompts already require the response to open with a `BLOCK:`/`CLEAN:`/`APPROVE:` token (tolerant of markdown bold around it, and found by searching the preamble before the review body starts rather than strictly at byte 0 - a model occasionally writes a sentence or two before the token line even when told to lead with it, which happened for real during this change's own review); use it as a simple backstop - missing it is malformed output (blocks), and a self-reported BLOCK overrides a structured count of 0. A structured count still always wins over a self-reported CLEAN, so the agent can't talk its way past a real finding. Update both reviewer prompts: put the leading token directly into the Output Format template (as a placeholder, not a literal example that could get echoed as a real verdict) so it isn't just a trailing instruction the agent might drift from, align code-reviewer's verdict vocabulary with the token vocabulary (APPROVE/BLOCK instead of APPROVE/REQUEST CHANGES), and state the Empty Sections rule as one unambiguous sentence in both directions in both files. Co-authored-by: Claude (Opus) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ezing role management (#3476) * fix(standards): prevent role delegation to a dead admin role from freezing role management * changelog * fix comment * remove redundant comments * apply suggestions
…es (#3501) * refactor(protocol): move shared input note helpers into private modules * chore: update changelog PR link * chore: address review comments * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Marti <marcin.gorny.94@protonmail.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Marti <marti@miden.team> Co-authored-by: Marti <marcin.gorny.94@protonmail.com>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
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.
This is a tracking PR for v0.17.0 release.