Conversation
This branch has not been deployed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Problem
Canonical map encoding currently sorts encoded keys only by length. For equal-length keys, the comparator returns zero, so the emitted bytes still depend on insertion order. This also affects custom encoding with
sortMapKeys: true.For example:
This surfaced as a Ledger transaction-hash mismatch in a downstream application: two equal-length token policy IDs were emitted in insertion order, while the wallet's hardware-signing request ordered them bytewise. Swapping only those two policies reproduced the device-returned hash. The regression fixtures here use synthetic values and contain no user wallet data.
Change
Add a bytewise tie-break after the existing encoded-key length comparison. This preserves the existing length-first ordering while making equal-length keys deterministic, as described in RFC 8949 section 4.2.3.
No API or dependency changes. Default unsorted encoding and explicitly captured format preservation remain unchanged. This does not change the existing length-first mode to RFC 8949 core deterministic lexicographic ordering.
Validation
No hardware device was available for a new signing session; the downstream diagnosis used previously captured device responses. The full repository integration suite was not run.