Refactor reshare tests #268
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
While working on private-attribution#256, I noticed that reshare tests consistently fail concurrency test. It was caused by always using RecordId(0) in a loop that terminates if reshare successfully generates unique shares. When loop needs more than 1 iteration it fails on PRSS uniqueness check. While it was possible to fix that test, I did not really like the probabilistic nature of it and decided to create 2 tests instead. One validates that reshare protocol actually communicates and another one that it is correct. It was also a good opportunity to use new test API implemented by @martinthomson in private-attribution#261. It should be used everywhere. One small change I made to the `TestWorld` to improve ergonomics changes `make_contexts` function to narrow generated contexts to some unique (within this world) step, so the following syntax is made possible ```rust for _ in 0..10 { world.semi_honest(..., |ctx, v| { ... }) }
src/protocol/sort/reshare.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
110
to
113
| // run reshare protocol for all helpers except the one that does not know the input | ||
| if ctx.role() == target { | ||
| // test follows the reshare protocol | ||
| ctx.prss().generate_fields(record_id).into() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Won't the effect be the same if you run reshare for this target? Or, are you trying to test that it doesn't need to participate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried to ensure a naive Reshare implementation (that is - take the input and return it as output) won't pass this test. I think that was the reason for for loop inside the test before.
src/protocol/sort/reshare.rs
Outdated
| ctx.prss().generate_fields(record_id).into() | ||
| } else { | ||
| Reshare::new(share.clone()) | ||
| .execute(&ctx, record_id, target) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This still takes a reference to the context, when it shouldn't.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let me merge #257 and rebase this on top of that
martinthomson
approved these changes
Nov 24, 2022
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.
While working on #256, I noticed that reshare tests consistently fail concurrency test. It was caused by always using RecordId(0) in a loop that terminates if reshare successfully generates unique shares. When loop needs more than 1 iteration it fails on PRSS uniqueness check.
While it was possible to fix that test, I did not really like the probabilistic nature of it and decided to create 2 tests instead. One validates that reshare protocol actually communicates and another one that it is correct.
It was also a good opportunity to use new test API implemented by @martinthomson in #261. It should be used everywhere.
One small change I made to the
TestWorldto improve ergonomics changesmake_contextsfunction to narrow generated contexts to some unique (within this world) step, so the following syntax is made possible