[skip changelog] chore: types: remove all references to FFI/rust implementations of CommP/sha2-256-254

[ribasushi]

No description provided.

[ribasushi]

@rvagg this is an update to your #11581 branch, building on your work in commp-utils, together with filecoin-project/go-commp-utils#18

What you need to review is the last 3 commits above only, as per

[rvagg]

🥳 🎆 🥳

1 2 3 4 5

🥳 🎆 🥳

Congratulations! You win ... something

[rvagg]

@ribasushi would you mind rebasing on rvagg/non-storage-verifier please, it's a bit hard to review this as you pulled in some master commits. I've rebased mine to current master but now we have overlapping commits.

[rvagg]

fwiw I don't find per-commit reviewing very helpful or productive and would rather a changeset be complete enough to review as a body

[rvagg]

this seems ok to me but goes deeper than I was doing in and touches storage/ stuff, so I'd like @magik6k's sign-off on this, and hopefully #11581 too would be great so we can get this flattened and merged.

[rjan90]

Could you update the PR title to match the: <type>: <area>: <subject> format?

Types: fix, feat, build, chore, ci, docs, perf, refactor, revert, style, test, chore
Area: e.g. api, chain, state, mempool, multisig, networking, paych, proving, sealing, wallet, deps

[ribasushi]

@rjan90 this PR is not against master, it's an internal to-be-flattened-into-another one.

Buit feel free to edit if still important.

[rvagg]

I think it's going to have to be against master eventually, I'm having a hard enough time getting reviews on #11581 and adding this to the mix is going to narrow down the number of potential reviewers even further so I'm inclined to tackle merging #11581 first and dealing with this second.

[ribasushi]

think it's going to have to be against master eventually

Changed references/title. This PR is a single commit over #11581 as of writing of this note

@rvagg @masih can I have a ✅ review on this please.

[rvagg]

Sorry, I squashed my noisy commits in #11581 when merging, then I put #12358 on top of it and it got merged. So now this is against master but has conflicts and shows the changes in #11581 again. Sorry to mess you around on this @ribasushi, but I should be able to review this now and merge since it's not my PR. I just need to do some double-checking of the logic in here which is a bit more complicated than #11581 was.

[rvagg]

I'm OK with this but don't want to merge it unilaterally. I'd really like a @filecoin-project/curio person to cast an eye over it since it touches storage/ pieces

[magik6k]

Stared at this for a while and see no reason why it shouldn't work. If something doesn't work we'll notice rather quickly