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

Use zkaleido repository #635

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Jan 29, 2025
Merged

Use zkaleido repository #635

merged 15 commits into from
Jan 29, 2025

Conversation

prajwolrg
Copy link
Contributor

@prajwolrg prajwolrg commented Jan 27, 2025

Description

This uses the newly created zkaleido repository for instead of strata-zkvm and strata-zkvm-adapters. There are also some minor updates and removes code duplication.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature/Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality or enhances an existing one)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update
  • Refactor
  • New or updated tests
  • Dependency Update

Notes to Reviewers

Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my code.
  • I have commented my code where necessary.
  • I have updated the documentation if needed.
  • My changes do not introduce new warnings.
  • I have added tests that prove my changes are effective or that my feature works.
  • New and existing tests pass with my changes.

Related Issues

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 27, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 32.78689% with 41 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.18%. Comparing base (0a0aabe) to head (c89a90b).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
crates/consensus-logic/src/l1_handler.rs 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
crates/state/src/batch.rs 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
crates/zkvm/hosts/src/sp1.rs 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
crates/proof-impl/btc-blockspace/src/prover.rs 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/proof-impl/checkpoint/src/prover.rs 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/proof-impl/cl-agg/src/prover.rs 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/proof-impl/cl-stf/src/prover.rs 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/proof-impl/evm-ee-stf/src/prover.rs 40.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/proof-impl/l1-batch/src/prover.rs 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
crates/consensus-logic/src/csm/worker.rs 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
... and 2 more
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #635      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.90%   56.18%   +0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         316      297      -19     
  Lines       33534    32736     -798     
==========================================
- Hits        18746    18392     -354     
+ Misses      14788    14344     -444     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
bin/prover-client/src/hosts/mod.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
bin/prover-client/src/hosts/native.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
bin/prover-client/src/operators/checkpoint.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
bin/prover-client/src/operators/mod.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
bin/prover-client/src/rpc_server.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
bin/strata-client/src/rpc_server.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
crates/db/src/traits.rs 0.00% <ø> (ø)
crates/db/src/types.rs 48.62% <ø> (+1.30%) ⬆️
crates/proof-impl/btc-blockspace/src/logic.rs 97.43% <ø> (ø)
crates/proof-impl/cl-agg/src/lib.rs 60.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 20 more

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

@prajwolrg prajwolrg marked this pull request as ready for review January 27, 2025 16:47
@prajwolrg prajwolrg requested review from a team as code owners January 27, 2025 16:47
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 27, 2025

Commit: 59610ab

SP1 Performance Test Results

program cycles success
BTC_BLOCKSPACE 30,357,421
EL_BLOCK 101,655
CL_BLOCK 57,537
L1_BATCH 30,387,392
L2_BATCH 5,473
CHECKPOINT 15,255

Copy link
Contributor

@bewakes bewakes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am kinda iffy about the From implementation for BatchCheckpoint that gives ProofReceipt. But the rest looks good to me. And great work on the library!

delbonis
delbonis previously approved these changes Jan 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@delbonis delbonis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Concur with other comment but looks good otherwise.

storopoli
storopoli previously approved these changes Jan 28, 2025
Copy link
Member

@storopoli storopoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 57f7c37

MdTeach
MdTeach previously approved these changes Jan 28, 2025
storopoli
storopoli previously approved these changes Jan 28, 2025
Copy link
Member

@storopoli storopoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK 3d55fb9

delbonis
delbonis previously approved these changes Jan 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@delbonis delbonis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Aw now there's a different merge conflict.

@prajwolrg prajwolrg dismissed stale reviews from delbonis, storopoli, and MdTeach via c89a90b January 29, 2025 03:55
@MdTeach MdTeach enabled auto-merge January 29, 2025 08:43
Copy link
Member

@storopoli storopoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ACK c89a90b

@MdTeach MdTeach added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 29, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 6ced1e8 Jan 29, 2025
18 of 19 checks passed
@MdTeach MdTeach deleted the STR-941-zkaleido branch January 29, 2025 13:31
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.

5 participants