Repository navigation
fix: preserve continuation-line glossary definitions - #47
Closed
arunimshukla wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
arunimshukla wants to merge 1 commit into
arunimshukla wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
arunimshukla
requested review from
cygnusv,
oskarth and
rymnc
as code owners
September 28, 2026 18:18
rymnc
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2026
Cherry-picks #46 (sibling RFP links), #47 (continuation-line glossary definitions), and #48 (Custom UTXO link to Shielding), preserving @arunimshukla as commit author. Clean picks onto main; tests pass (62/62). Prompted by: ac --------- Co-authored-by: Arunim Shukla <54760103+arunimshukla@users.noreply.github.com>
Member
|
thank you @arunimshukla, merged in 3330621 |
rymnc
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2026
Draft of the formal verification writeup, for review. It is unpublished (`published: false`), so merging does not put it on the site; we flip that on publication day. The post walks one shielded pool from the written spec down to the bytecode on Sepolia: what we proved at each layer, what we only checked, what we still assume, what broke, and where this goes. One figure, in the post's asset folder. The tables and footnotes carry the numbers; every number traces to the model repository or the public pocs. Read it as a reader would, then as a reviewer: - Does the story hold together, and does it say anything stronger than what we have? - Is anything important missing, or given too much or too little room? - Technical accuracy on the parts you know best. Corrections, pushback and "this reads wrong" all welcome. Not in this PR: the figure sources and the preview builder (they stay in the notes vault), the spec mirror release, the model repository going public, and the timelock merge, all of which sit on the pre-publication checklist.
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
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.
Summary
parseGlossary()only reads definition text from the glossary term line. In the current map content,Data Availability Layer (DA Layer)places its definition on the immediately following line, so the generated entry contains an empty definition and is omitted from the public glossary.This change:
src/data/glossary.jsonwith the missing DA Layer definitionThe earlier glossary-link work from #45 is now present on
mainthrough commit63f99bd. This is an independent follow-up based on that commit.Reproduction
Against current
main:Data Availability Layer (DA Layer)is generated with"definition": ""After this patch, the term count remains 74 and the source definition is preserved.
Regression coverage
The tests cover:
Validation
npm test: 61/61 passednpm run lint:refs: passednpm run build: passed, 218 pages built