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

feat(prover): WitnessGenerator refactoring #2 #2899

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Sep 19, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Artemka374
Copy link
Contributor

@Artemka374 Artemka374 commented Sep 17, 2024

What ❔

Introduce WitnessGenerator trait
Rename some methods

Why ❔

Checklist

  • PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog entries from PRs).
  • Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
  • Documentation comments have been added / updated.
  • Code has been formatted via zk fmt and zk lint.

@Artemka374 Artemka374 changed the title feat(prover): [WIP] More WG refactoring feat(prover): WitnessGenerator refactoring #2 Sep 17, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@EmilLuta EmilLuta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall LGTM. Left a bunch of nits. Here's 1 not very popular opinion:
I believe we can have a single binary for all witness generators (except basic -- and it may include proof compressor as well), because they mostly do the same thing, just load slightly different artifacts & operate on different tables.

Basic Witness Generator is different (because it's not really a witness generator anyways, it runs the VM and does a lot of other things alongside).

Whilst I don't think we should change the approach in this PR, I'd think about it. This setup is already better than what we had before, but I'm super positive we can get away with a minimal amount of custom code for leaf/node/rt/scheduler.

@Artemka374
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually I beliebe we really can do it the way that Leaf/node/rt/scheduler have the minimum amount of different code and I think much more changes can be done on this field, but I want to do these changes step by step(to not break anything). But yes, I think we can do something like that in the next PRs

@Artemka374 Artemka374 added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 19, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 36e5340 Sep 19, 2024
26 checks passed
@Artemka374 Artemka374 deleted the afo/wg-improvements-2 branch September 19, 2024 09:27
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.

2 participants