docs(zcash): rename preflight FUTURE marker to omitted-field-recompute
What the developer wrote
Authored by Adam Tucker
docs(zcash): rename preflight FUTURE marker to omitted-field-recompute
The previous tag "qr-v2-omitted-fields" collided with this project's
established use of "QR" for quantum-recoverable notes and referenced an
unpinned "v2". Rename to describe the step plainly.
What changed, and why it matters
This commit only renames a future-work comment marker in the Zcash code from 'qr-v2-omitted-fields' to 'omitted-field-recompute'. No actual code behavior changes; it is purely a documentation-style edit to avoid confusing terminology. There is no security issue present.
No action needed. This is a non-functional documentation rename.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff modifies three comments in rust/apps/zcash/src/lib.rs. Each comment is a ‘FUTURE’ TODO marker noting that omitted fields in a PCZT (Partially Created Zcash Transaction) should be recomputed or checked in the future. The rename avoids a naming collision with the project’s use of ‘QR’ for quantum-recoverable notes and removes an unpinned ‘v2’ reference. No executable code, logic, or data handling changed.
Changed components
rust/apps/zcash/src/lib.rsInspect captured patch +4 / −4
diff --git a/rust/apps/zcash/src/lib.rs b/rust/apps/zcash/src/lib.rs
index 2af8eec..ce31996 100644
--- a/rust/apps/zcash/src/lib.rs
+++ b/rust/apps/zcash/src/lib.rs
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ pub fn preflight_pczt_cypherpunk<P: consensus::Parameters>(
account_index: u32,
) -> Result<Vec<u8>> {
let pczt = pczt::parse_pczt(pczt_bytes)?;
- // FUTURE(qr-v2-omitted-fields): recompute-or-check omitted fields here,
+ // FUTURE(omitted-field-recompute): recompute-or-check omitted fields here,
// mutating `pczt` so the normalized bytes carry the verified values forward.
check_parsed_pczt_cypherpunk(params, &pczt, ufvk_text, seed_fingerprint, account_index)?;
Ok(pczt.serialize())
@@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ pub fn preflight_batch_pczt_cypherpunk<P: consensus::Parameters>(
account_index: u32,
) -> Result<Vec<u8>> {
let pczt = pczt::parse_pczt(pczt_bytes)?;
- // FUTURE(qr-v2-omitted-fields): recompute-or-check omitted fields here, as
- // in preflight_pczt_cypherpunk.
+ // FUTURE(omitted-field-recompute): recompute-or-check omitted fields here,
+ // as in preflight_pczt_cypherpunk.
check_parsed_pczt_cypherpunk(params, &pczt, ufvk_text, seed_fingerprint, account_index)?;
let account_id = zip32::AccountId::try_from(account_index)
.map_err(|_e| ZcashError::InvalidDataError("invalid account index".to_string()))?;
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ pub fn preflight_pczt_multi_coins<P: consensus::Parameters>(
account_index: u32,
) -> Result<Vec<u8>> {
let pczt = pczt::parse_pczt(pczt_bytes)?;
- // FUTURE(qr-v2-omitted-fields): recompute-or-check omitted fields here,
+ // FUTURE(omitted-field-recompute): recompute-or-check omitted fields here,
// mutating `pczt` so the normalized bytes carry the verified values forward.
check_parsed_pczt_multi_coins(params, &pczt, xpub, seed_fingerprint, account_index)?;
Ok(pczt.serialize())
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.