Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[berkeley] Use Proof_cache for Test_zkapp_update tests #14031

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Oct 17, 2023

Conversation

mrmr1993
Copy link
Member

@mrmr1993 mrmr1993 commented Sep 1, 2023

This PR builds upon #14030, using the proof cache introduced there to skip the proof generation step on the kimchi side.

Checklist:

  • Dependency versions are unchanged
    • Notify Velocity team if dependencies must change in CI
  • Modified the current draft of release notes with details on what is completed or incomplete within this project
  • Document code purpose, how to use it
    • Mention expected invariants, implicit constraints
  • Tests were added for the new behavior
    • Document test purpose, significance of failures
    • Test names should reflect their purpose
  • All tests pass (CI will check this if you didn't)
  • Serialized types are in stable-versioned modules
  • Does this close issues? List them

@mrmr1993 mrmr1993 requested a review from a team as a code owner September 1, 2023 21:52
@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

mrmr1993 commented Sep 1, 2023

!ci-build-me

Copy link
Member

@psteckler psteckler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it help to put the proof caches in separate files, so they don't clutter the tests?

@nholland94
Copy link
Member

Inlining the proofs into the test files makes them hard to work with. I would really like to see these proofs in separate files that we load inside of the tests. In fact, with the way git works, it would be best to have those files contain compact JSON rather than pretty printed JSON so that every change to those files doesn't incur storing a diff of 60k+ lines of code. We may even want to mark such proof files for storage in LFS, which we can do by giving these files a custom extension (like .proof) and configuring the .gitattributes accordingly.

1 similar comment
@nholland94
Copy link
Member

Inlining the proofs into the test files makes them hard to work with. I would really like to see these proofs in separate files that we load inside of the tests. In fact, with the way git works, it would be best to have those files contain compact JSON rather than pretty printed JSON so that every change to those files doesn't incur storing a diff of 60k+ lines of code. We may even want to mark such proof files for storage in LFS, which we can do by giving these files a custom extension (like .proof) and configuring the .gitattributes accordingly.

@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

We may even want to mark such proof files for storage in LFS

Didn't we stop using LFS because the repo hit the quota and broke things?

I would really like to see these proofs in separate files that we load inside of the tests.

Will do 👍

@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

!ci-build-me

Base automatically changed from feature/proof-cache to berkeley September 19, 2023 10:14
@mrmr1993 mrmr1993 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 17, 2023 10:41
@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

!ci-build-me

@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

!ci-build-me

src/lib/pickles/step.ml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/lib/pickles/wrap.ml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

!ci-build-me

Copy link
Contributor

@rbonichon rbonichon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice work. Thanks for the changes!

@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member Author

!approved-for-mainnet

@mrmr1993 mrmr1993 merged commit 08d678a into berkeley Oct 17, 2023
@mrmr1993 mrmr1993 deleted the feature/use-proof-cache branch October 17, 2023 19:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants