Skip to content

Conversation

sebasti810
Copy link
Contributor

@sebasti810 sebasti810 commented Apr 7, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Added support for compressed proof outputs that adapt based on the deployment platform, ensuring optimized processing across different environments.
    • Enhanced proof generation methods now provide both standard and compressed proofs, with epoch outputs updated to include the new compressed details for improved reliability.

Copy link

vercel bot commented Apr 7, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Skipped Deployment
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
prism ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Apr 15, 2025 10:00am

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 7, 2025

Walkthrough

This pull request introduces a new type alias CompressedProof that is conditionally defined based on the target architecture and adds a new compressed_proof field to the FinalizedEpoch struct. The changes update the initialization and cloning of this field in the constructor and verification methods. Additionally, the Prover implementation is modified to generate and include the compressed proof in both base and recursive proving methods, with corresponding updates to method signatures and logging.

Changes

Files Change Summary
crates/da/src/lib.rs Introduces type alias CompressedProof with variations for wasm32 and other architectures, adds a new field compressed_proof to the FinalizedEpoch struct (including initialization and cloning), and reorders the import of anyhow.
crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs Updates the Prover implementation by adding a new variable compressed_proof in the prove_with_base_prover and prove_with_recursive_prover methods, adjusts method signatures to include compressed proofs, and enhances logging around proof generation.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Caller
    participant Prover
    participant CPUProver
    Caller->>Prover: Request prove_with_base_prover(epoch, batch)
    Prover->>Prover: Generate base proof
    Prover->>Prover: Generate compressed proof
    Prover->>CPUProver: Acquire read lock for proof verification
    Prover->>Caller: Return (base proof, compressed proof, CPUProver, verifying key)
Loading
sequenceDiagram
    participant Caller
    participant Prover
    participant CPUProver
    Caller->>Prover: Request prove_with_recursive_prover(epoch, batch)
    Prover->>Prover: Generate recursive proof
    Prover->>Prover: Generate compressed proof (with previous epoch check)
    Prover->>CPUProver: Acquire read lock for proof verification
    Prover->>Caller: Return (recursive proof, compressed proof, CPUProver, verifying key)
Loading

Possibly related PRs

  • fix: verifying service challenges in InsertProof #189: The changes in the main PR, which introduce a new field compressed_proof in the FinalizedEpoch struct, are related to the modifications in the retrieved PR that also update the prove_epoch method to include compressed_proof in its return value, indicating a direct connection at the code level.

Suggested labels

bug

Poem

I hopped through the lines of code so bright,
Adding compressed proofs with all my might.
From WASM to native, the logic is clear,
A new field in Epoch brings the proof so near.
Bugs scurry off as our features align,
Coding with joy like a rabbit divine!
🐇✨


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2e9b1c0 and 1e2edf9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (6 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
  • GitHub Check: unused dependencies
  • GitHub Check: unit-test
  • GitHub Check: integration-test
  • GitHub Check: build-and-push-image

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai plan to trigger planning for file edits and PR creation.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 2

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f4f794f and 2e9b1c0.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • crates/da/src/lib.rs (3 hunks)
  • crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (6 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: clippy
crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs

[failure] 479-479:
unused variable: batch

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
  • GitHub Check: unused dependencies
  • GitHub Check: unit-test
  • GitHub Check: integration-test
  • GitHub Check: build-and-push-image
  • GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
crates/da/src/lib.rs (3)

29-33: LGTM: Well-structured type alias for CompressedProof

The addition of the CompressedProof type alias with conditional compilation based on target architecture follows the established pattern used for Groth16Proof, providing good consistency in the codebase.


42-42: LGTM: Added compressed_proof field to FinalizedEpoch struct

The new field properly extends the FinalizedEpoch struct to store compressed proofs, which aligns with the PR objective of updating the struct in production.


61-61: LGTM: Updated verify_signature method to handle compressed_proof

The verify_signature method now correctly clones the compressed_proof field when creating an epoch without a signature, maintaining the integrity of the verification process.

crates/node_types/prover/src/prover/mod.rs (2)

447-474: LGTM: Base prover now generates both standard and compressed proofs

The method signature has been updated to include the compressed proof in the return type, and the implementation now properly generates and logs both proof types.


534-560: LGTM: prove_epoch correctly updated to handle compressed proofs

The method now properly destructures the tuple to retrieve both the standard and compressed proofs, and correctly includes the compressed proof in the FinalizedEpoch struct.

@sebasti810 sebasti810 merged commit d9f4ef6 into main Apr 15, 2025
1 check was pending
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2025
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