docs: warn that witnesses are test-only and not a published artifact#529
Conversation
Replaces the SPDX-License-Identifier and OpenZeppelin path-stamp header on each moved witness with a four-line disclaimer that flags the file as unaudited reference material, used only to drive Compact circuits during off-chain tests, and not shipped as a consumable artifact. Production consumers must author and audit their own. Mirrors the root-README callout added in d3dadbd and addresses review feedback that these files should not carry an MIT header or look like production-grade code.
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (11)
WalkthroughThis PR updates file header comments across 11 witness test modules in the access, archive, security, token, and utils contracts. The changes replace SPDX license and version banners with explicit "TEST-ONLY WITNESS" disclaimers clarifying that the materials are unaudited reference content for off-chain tests and must not be used as production artifacts. ChangesTest-Only Witness Header Updates
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
ESLint skipped: no ESLint configuration detected in root package.json. To enable, add Comment |
Types of changes
What types of changes does your code introduce to OpenZeppelin Midnight Contracts?
Put an `` in the boxes that apply
Fixes #???
PR Checklist
Further comments
If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...
Summary by CodeRabbit