Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

expression: replace recursive Tree datatype with a non-recursive one #780

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

apoelstra
Copy link
Member

Replaces the recursive expression::Tree datatype with a nonrecursive one. Exposes a limited API consisting of operations which can be done efficiently (mainly, in-order iteration) and which are necessary for parsing trees and converting them to other types.

As a side effect this simplifies/unifies some more code and provides better error messages, in particular for threshold parsing. But that isn't a focus of this PR and I haven't quantified the changes.

This is the last of the "expression" PRs. I have followups which go in two directions: (1) eliminating more recursion and recursive datatypes, and (2) improving the TapTree API, which I found I needed this new expression API to do cleanly.

Will post benchmarks once I have them.

Copy link
Member Author

@apoelstra apoelstra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On 515974a successfully ran local tests

@apoelstra
Copy link
Member Author

I don't understand this doc failure... it's claiming that the Tree::verify_threshold method doesn't exist but it definitely does (and I can call it from within the function I'm documenting).

Our current expression API has a `to_null_threshold` method, which works
reasonably well but requires the caller translate the returned threshold
by accessing individual children.

We will later want to change the Tree represntation to make individual
child access inefficient. To do this, encapsulate the threshold
construction into a new verify_threshold.

This previously was not done because our messy error structures made it
very difficult to manage. But our error structures are less messy so
it's possible now, though a bit of a hack. (We map everything to the
global Error structure. Later we will do pretty-much the same thing
but with ParseError in place of Error, which will be more elegant.)
This removes the ability to randomly access children of tree nodes. You
can get them in order using the `children` iterator, and get them
recursively using the `TreeLike` iterator methods. (In the next commits
we will specialize these a bit, providing a `pre_order_iter` and
`rtl_post_order_iter` which let you efficiently skip over subtrees. We
will need these to parse Taproot expression trees and they don't fit
into the `TreeLike` trait, at least not efficiently.)
This significantly speeds up and simplifies tree parsing, at the cost of
having a more complicated API (but we mostly addressed the API question
in the previous commits).

This completely eliminates recursion for the Tree data type, including
in the Drop impl.

Big diff but there are only two "real" changes -- expression/mod.rs is
substantially rewritten of course since we replace the core datatype,
and Tr::from_tree is substantially rewritten since doing so was the
point of this change. The rest of the changes are mechanically changing
the signature of expression::FromTree::from_tree everywhere.
This bumps the local Cargo.toml version to 13, which will be the next
release (since we've made many breaking changes), and in the fuzz test
adds an explicit dependency on miniscript 12 from crates.io, as
`old_miniscript`.

Adds a single fuzztest which attempt to parse descriptors with both
master and 12, to make sure they're the same.
Copy link
Member Author

@apoelstra apoelstra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On 8235d5f successfully ran local tests

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant