backlog: unify circuits naming

[lispc]

Sometimes we use "XXCircuitConfig" as the struct containing columns and "XXCircuit" as the struct to containing witness(block), while sometime we use "XXCircuit" as the struct containing columns.

There are more inconsistency. Eg: EvmCircuit is the "proper" circuit without shared tables, and "TestCircuit" in evm_circuit.rs is the "full(runnable)" circuit. While for StateCircuit there is no "proper" circuit without shared tables. "StateCircuit" is the "full" circuit.

I suggest XXCircuitConfig will be columns while XXCircuit be witness(block). And we should unify names like "MyCircuit"/"TestCircuit" to "BytecodeTestCircuit"/"EvmTestCircuit" later.

[aguzmant103]

Besides the above, also unify the name of the functions for how a circuit is configured and assigned. This is helpful to simplify the testnet.

As there are many possible standards, get some consensus of naming before making the changes.

[ed255]

Here's a summary of the current status:

circuit	columns struct	witness struct	config constructor	assign fn	instance build
EVM	EvmCircuit	(only test)	EvmCircuit::configure	EvmCircuit.assign_block(layouter, block)	-
State	StateCircuitConfig	StateCircuit	StateCircuitConfig::configure	StateCircuitConfig.assign(layouter, rws, ...)	-
Tx	TxCircuitConfig	TxCircuit	TxCircuitConfig::new	TxCircuit.assign(tx_circuit_cfg, layouter, ...)	-
Bytecode	Config	(only test)	BytecodeConfig::configure	BytecodeConfig.assign(layouter, ..., bytecodes)	-
Copy	CopyCircuit	(only test)	CopyCircuit::configure	CopyCircuit.assign_block(layouter, block)	-
Exp	ExpCircuitConfig	ExpCircuit	ExpCircuitConfig::configure	ExpCircuitConfig.assign_block(layouter, block)	-
Keccak	KeccakPackedConfig	KeccakPackedCircuit	KeccakConfig::configure	KeccakConfig.assign_from_witness(layouter, keccak_inputs, ...)	-
PI	PiCircuitConfig	PiCircuit	PiCircuitConfig::new	PiCircuit.synthesize(pi_circuit_config, layouter)	PiCircuit.instance
Super	SuperCircuitConfig	SuperCircuit	SuperCircuit::configure	SuperCircuit.synthesize(super_circuit_config, layouter)	SuperCircuit.instance

Aux tables assignment:

• Tables:
  • FooTable.load(layouter, values...)
• EVM:
  • EvmCircuit.load_fixed_table(layouter, values)
  • EvmCircuit.load_byte_table(layouter)
• State:
  • StateCircuitConfig.load(layouter)
• TxCircuit:
  • TxCircuitConfig.load(layouter)
• Bytecode:
  • Config.load(layouter)
• Keccak:
  • KeccakPackedConfig.load(layouter)

[lispc]

another issue is the capacity/size/padding_to/max_rws of circuits.

[ed255]

I've come up with these two traits that would be used to unify all circuits:

/// SubCircuit is a circuit that performs the verification of a specific part of
/// the full Ethereum block verification.  The SubCircuit's interact with each
/// other via lookup tables and/or shared public inputs.  This type must contain
/// all the inputs required to synthesize this circuit (and the contained
/// table(s) if any).
pub trait SubCircuit<F: Field> {
    /// Configuration of the SubCircuit.
    type Config: SubCircuitConfig<F>;

    /// Returns the instance columns required for this circuit.
    fn instance(&self) -> Vec<Vec<F>> {
        vec![]
    }
    /// Assign the columns used by this circuit.  This includes the columns that
    /// belong to the exposed lookup table contained within, if any.
    fn synthesize(
        &self,
        config: &Self::Config,
        challenges: &Challenges<Value<F>>,
        layouter: &mut impl Layouter<F>,
    ) -> Result<(), Error>;
}

/// SubCircuit configuration
pub trait SubCircuitConfig<F: Field> {
    /// Config constructor arguments
    type ConfigArgs;

    /// Type constructor
    fn new(meta: &mut ConstraintSystem<F>, args: Self::ConfigArgs) -> Self;
}

[ed255]

Resolved via #937