Addresses the following review comments:
- "Shouldn't we use a program that checks authorization in this test as
callee? If not, I'm not sure if we are fully testing what the test
docs describe (namely, that the callee got the input account with
is_authorized=true). Maybe add a variant of the noop that checks the
input account is authorized."
I added test_program_methods/guest/src/bin/auth_asserting_noop.rs:
same shape as noop.rs except it asserts pre.is_authorized == true for
every pre_state before echoing the post_states. Any unauthorized
pre_state panics the guest, failing the whole circuit proof. I added
Program::auth_asserting_noop() as the matching helper. In
caller_pda_seeds_authorize_private_pda_for_callee and
caller_pda_seeds_with_wrong_seed_rejects_private_pda_for_callee, I
swapped Program::noop() for Program::auth_asserting_noop() as the
callee. The positive test now proves the callee actually sees
is_authorized=true, not just that the circuit's consistency check did
not reject. The negative test doubles its evidence, both the
circuit's authorization reconciliation and the callee guest would now
reject a wrong-seed delegation.
- "This branching logic is only correct because we are not supporting
non-authorized private accounts with non-default values. Likely to be
changed in the future. I'm sure there's use cases for this. For
example the multisig program if ran completely private it would need
a private non-default and non-authorized input account."
Agreed. Supporting this needs wallet-supplied `(seed, owner)` side
input so the npk-to-account_id binding can be re-verified for an
existing private PDA without a fresh Claim::Pda or a caller
pda_seeds match. I handled this in the second PR. I added a
TODO(private-pdas-pr-2/3) marker on the `else` branch in
privacy_preserving_circuit.rs:3 => { ... } so the constraint is
visible to future maintainers, along with a comment noting the
multisig use case.
