feat: reveal multiple rangesets with one rangeset.

[yuroitaki]

Addresses #655

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 86.14719% with 32 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.22%. Comparing base (65299d7) to head (f26630e).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/core/src/transcript/proof.rs	85.02%	25 Missing ⚠️
crates/core/src/transcript.rs	85.71%	6 Missing ⚠️
crates/core/src/index.rs	94.73%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #664      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.76%   56.22%   +0.45%     
==========================================
  Files         189      189              
  Lines       20886    20854      -32     
==========================================
+ Hits        11648    11725      +77     
+ Misses       9238     9129     -109     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sinui0]

This doesn't address the issue, we're not looking for a method to pass in a slice. Instead, we want to address the problem that the user has to specify each range individually which corresponds to a commitment. When the user provides a range set to reveal, we should look into the encoding tree/hash commitments and determine if we can satisfy it with one or more of the available commitments.

[yuroitaki]

This doesn't address the issue, we're not looking for a method to pass in a slice. Instead, we want to address the problem that the user has to specify each range individually which corresponds to a commitment. When the user provides a range set to reveal, we should look into the encoding tree/hash commitments and determine if we can satisfy it with one or more of the available commitments.

Yeap! Got the same feedback from @themighty1 , and am working on it

[themighty1]

I'm sorry @yuroitaki , I left my comment above a few days ago but gh still had it as "pending". Apparently i am not able to leave a single comment without explicitely marking the review as "request changes".

[yuroitaki]

bug: Direction needs to be stored alongside Idx as the latter doesn't contain any direction info.

[themighty1]

good catch, i'll open an issue lest we forget (but i think this bug was already addressed in one of the open PRs, or maybe it's in my local wip review branch.)

[yuroitaki]

ah i actually also fixed this bug in this PR itself