feat(aztec-nr): wire constrained message delivery by vezenovm · Pull Request #23866 · AztecProtocol/aztec-packages

vezenovm · 2026-06-04T13:57:52Z

Fixes F-669
Fixes F-670

The change

Adds constrained-delivery helpers that resolve or bootstrap the app-siloed handshake secret, seed same-tx index reuse, validate index 0 against the standard HandshakeRegistry, and constrain index > 0 through the previous chain nullifier.
Wires constrained private message delivery to derive constrained log tags from the resolved (secret, index) pair and emit the current constrained-message nullifier.
Keeps constrained logs from being squashed with note hashes so recipient discovery can advance the per-secret index chain.
Authorizes the standard HandshakeRegistry utility reads needed by the flow.
Adds TXE, snapshot, and e2e coverage for bootstrap, reuse, index advancement, missing prior-nullifier failure, invalid API combinations, and standard-registry constrained delivery.

Large portion of the diff is tests.

F-741 follow-up for the test skipped in fd07996.

Concurrency / batching constraint (worth a look)

Pinning the e2e tests surfaced a sequencing constraint in constrained delivery that reviewers should sanity-check:

Parallel sends on one (sender, recipient, secret) chain collide. Each send is keyed on an incrementing index, so two sends fired as separate parallel txs read the same index and one tx is rejected. Distinct recipients are distinct chains and parallelize fine. Pinned as it.failing (documents the limit; flips green if parallel sends ever become supported).
Same-chain sends can be batched into one tx, but only onto an already-committed handshake. A later send discharges its predecessor check against a same-tx pending nullifier. Works both via a single contract call (emit_two_events) and client-side BatchCall.
Batching onto a brand-new chain does not reuse, it re-handshakes. The reuse-vs-bootstrap decision in get_or_create_app_siloed_handshake_secret is a utility call reading committed state, so a bootstrap earlier in the same tx is invisible and the later send mints a fresh secret on a separate chain (next index lands at 1, not 2). A new recipient therefore needs one landed tx to establish the chain before sends can be batched onto it. This is why the batched tests seed the handshake first.

All four behaviors are pinned in e2e_constrained_delivery.test.ts; the rationale lives in the module doc and on get_or_create_app_siloed_handshake_secret. Follow-up: allowing utility functions to execute against combined committed + pending transaction state is tracked in F-238.

) Fixes [F-697](https://linear.app/aztec-labs/issue/F-697/aztec-nr-extend-the-onchaindelivery-builder-for-secret-origin) Fixes [F-649](https://linear.app/aztec-labs/issue/F-649/fixaztec-nr-skip-note-log-linkage-for-onchain-constrained-delivery-to) ## Summary - Extends `MessageDelivery` with separate typed builders for unconstrained and constrained on-chain delivery. - Adds internal tag-secret derivation config: - offchain: none - onchain unconstrained: address-pair by default, with optional non-interactive handshake selection - onchain constrained: non-interactive handshake - Introduces `OnchainDeliveryMode` as the typed on-chain mode used by tagging-index helpers and the HandshakeRegistry ABI instead of raw `u8` values. - Keeps invalid delivery/tag-derivation combinations rejected at compile time where possible. - Stops linking constrained-tagged note logs to note-hash squashing, so removing a squashed note does not break the recipient tag index chain. - Re-pins the HandshakeRegistry standard contract and updates the generated standard-contract metadata. Constrained tagging is still not fully wired up: the delivery config is validated, but tag emission remains mocked through the existing wallet-derived unconstrained path behind TODO(#14565). Stack: #23875, then this PR, then #23866, then #23867. --------- Co-authored-by: AztecBot <tech@aztec-labs.com> Co-authored-by: Nicolas Chamo <nicolas@chamo.com.ar>

…et_and_index Also corrects the safety comment on the registry utility call: a duplicate handshake replaces the stored note rather than failing, so the actual argument is that every branch constrains the secret it returns.

…ery-helpers

StatefulTest is a generic test contract used across e2e/PXE unit tests that don't exercise constrained-delivery semantics. Routing its `create_note`/`create_note_no_init_check`/`destroy_and_create_no_init_check` inserts through `onchain_constrained()` ties those tests to the constrained-msg nullifier chain — that breaks parallel-deploy block tests (chain collision on shared recipient), PXE unit tests that don't set up handshake state, and the e2e_2_pxes "no account secret key" scenario. Dedicated constrained-delivery coverage lives in ConstrainedDeliveryTest + e2e_constrained_delivery; same precedent as the earlier state_vars test switch.

vezenovm · 2026-06-17T15:38:07Z

    const deployedContract = await deployContract();

    const sender = owner;
+    const insertConstrainedSelector = await deployedContract.methods.insert_note_constrained.selector();


Just highlighting this is specifically a constrained note log test

…ery-helpers

nchamo

I'm still going over it, but wanted to share some initial feedback

nchamo · 2026-06-17T17:36:54Z

+  return (
+    functionSelector.equals(await STANDARD_HANDSHAKE_REGISTRY_GET_APP_SILOED_SECRET_SELECTOR) &&
+    args.length >= 4 &&
+    // TODO(F-671): will be replaced with `self.msg_sender()` once utility context exposes it.


While it does make sense to have this, since we already have a PR in place (#24062), I would avoid it, simply to avoid merging conflicts

I would avoid it, simply to avoid merging conflicts

Just for clarity sake, you mean this entire check right?

nchamo · 2026-06-17T18:03:33Z

 /// The fields are private and there is no public constructor: a `MessageDelivery` can only be produced by a
-/// [`MessageDeliveryBuilder`] that enforces valid configurations, so invalid field combinations cannot be
-/// represented to the consumer.
+/// [`MessageDeliveryBuilder`]. The delivery APIs validate the built configuration before consuming it.


I know that we are currently allowing to create "invalid" states, but that is only temporary (for a few PRs), right? The end state will only allow devs to build valid states, right?

Yes that will be the end state.

nchamo · 2026-06-17T18:41:05Z

+    )
+}
+
+mod test {


Is it me, or are we missing quite a lot of tests here?

I think we have a lot of behaviors and decision trees on this file that we are not testing. Could we?

Most of the coverage is contained in constrained_delivery_test_contract/src/test.nr but yeah this could do with some unit tests.

Added some unit tests

…src/main.nr Co-authored-by: Nicolas Chamo <nicolas@chamo.com.ar>

…_variables.md Co-authored-by: Nicolas Chamo <nicolas@chamo.com.ar>

…ule, handshake reg selector override constants

…lpers' into mv/f-669-constrained-delivery-helpers

AztecBot · 2026-06-17T21:32:10Z

Flakey Tests

🤖 says: This CI run detected 1 tests that failed, but were tolerated due to a .test_patterns.yml entry.

\033FLAKED\033 (8;;http://ci.aztec-labs.com/bc2b942422d9df29�bc2b942422d9df298;;�): yarn-project/end-to-end/scripts/run_test.sh ha src/composed/ha/e2e_ha_full.parallel.test.ts "should not be affected by process.env.TZ changes" (44s) (code: 0)

vezenovm requested review from LeilaWang and nventuro as code owners June 4, 2026 13:57

This was referenced Jun 4, 2026

feat(aztec-nr): wire constrained tagging into message delivery #23867

Closed

feat(aztec-nr): extend OnchainDelivery builder for secret origin #23865

Merged

vezenovm force-pushed the mv/f-697-general-delivery-builder branch from b9f12b8 to befb4ea Compare June 5, 2026 01:34

vezenovm requested review from IlyasRidhuan, MirandaWood, jeanmon and sirasistant as code owners June 5, 2026 01:34

vezenovm force-pushed the mv/f-669-constrained-delivery-helpers branch from 69abd69 to e2a43cd Compare June 5, 2026 01:34

vezenovm removed request for IlyasRidhuan, LeilaWang, MirandaWood, jeanmon and sirasistant June 5, 2026 01:44

Base automatically changed from mv/f-697-general-delivery-builder to merge-train/fairies-v5 June 10, 2026 15:51

feat(aztec-nr): add constrained delivery helper

c552943

vezenovm force-pushed the mv/f-669-constrained-delivery-helpers branch from 6337393 to c552943 Compare June 10, 2026 17:55

vezenovm added 3 commits June 10, 2026 16:39

comments

000162b

fmt

36681e6

.

0271756

vezenovm mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2026

feat(aztec-nr): Helper to validate the app-siloed secret and index for constrained tagging #23569

Closed

vezenovm changed the title ~~feat(aztec-nr): add calculate_secret_and_index constrained-delivery helper~~ feat(aztec-nr): add resolve_secret_and_index constrained-delivery helper Jun 10, 2026

vezenovm added 2 commits June 10, 2026 18:56

Merge branch 'merge-train/fairies-v5' into mv/f-669-constrained-deliv…

5699c52

…ery-helpers

Merge branch 'merge-train/fairies-v5' into mv/f-669-constrained-deliv…

389493b

…ery-helpers

vezenovm requested a review from nchamo June 11, 2026 14:19

vezenovm added 2 commits June 11, 2026 10:34

some minor simplifications

c334adc

shared unconstrained/constrained tag computaiton

cd2fbea

vezenovm added 3 commits June 16, 2026 15:27

update pending note hashes test

a66cedd

more tests and reorg

54520c9

onchain_unconstrained for state_vars test

4c13ccb

vezenovm added the ci-no-fail-fast Sets NO_FAIL_FAST in the CI so the run is not aborted on the first failure label Jun 16, 2026

AztecBot force-pushed the mv/f-669-constrained-delivery-helpers branch from 7b401f0 to 7628eab Compare June 16, 2026 22:30

vezenovm added 2 commits June 17, 2026 11:13

skip private state is zero w/o secret key test

fd07996

link to linear issue

375800b

vezenovm commented Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

comments and remove redundant test

08c35b0

vezenovm marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2026 15:53

vezenovm requested a review from a team as a code owner June 17, 2026 15:53

Merge branch 'merge-train/fairies-v5' into mv/f-669-constrained-deliv…

269fb80

…ery-helpers

vezenovm marked this pull request as draft June 17, 2026 16:05

vezenovm added 3 commits June 17, 2026 12:06

use default sender to simplify tests

99b0a9c

fmt

32cdf5d

.

20ae9f6

vezenovm marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2026 16:41

nchamo reviewed Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

vezenovm and others added 10 commits June 17, 2026 14:55

Update noir-projects/noir-contracts/contracts/test/test_log_contract/…

f6b9c71

…src/main.nr Co-authored-by: Nicolas Chamo <nicolas@chamo.com.ar>

comment updates

05ffc5a

one more comment

45a9a9d

Update docs/docs-developers/docs/aztec-nr/framework-description/state…

b6eb170

…_variables.md Co-authored-by: Nicolas Chamo <nicolas@chamo.com.ar>

pr review cleanup and comments

f73130b

more snap and test removal

41411a4

constrained_delivery unit tests, re-org get_app_or.. to handshake mod…

73b3c40

…ule, handshake reg selector override constants

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/mv/f-669-constrained-delivery-he…

56d84b2

…lpers' into mv/f-669-constrained-delivery-helpers

index >0 comment

833f58e

fix unit test

c98d885

Conversation

vezenovm commented Jun 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

The change

Concurrency / batching constraint (worth a look)

Uh oh!

vezenovm Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nchamo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nchamo Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vezenovm Jun 17, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nchamo Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vezenovm Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nchamo Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vezenovm Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vezenovm Jun 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AztecBot commented Jun 17, 2026

Flakey Tests

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

vezenovm commented Jun 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vezenovm Jun 17, 2026 •

edited

Loading