-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 282
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: proof surgery class #8236
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b9023a9
initial infrstructure of surgeon; tests passing
ledwards2225 5599967
massive simplification to witness construction in test
ledwards2225 8f43637
no need to move agg obj to public inputs before reconstructing proof
ledwards2225 3df7fc0
simplify witness pop method
ledwards2225 7dd94c2
cleanup
ledwards2225 6204cef
adjust sizes in dummy construction
ledwards2225 3595775
clarify comments around sizes
ledwards2225 302cdc1
fix bad index in dummy proof
ledwards2225 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lucas you were right that the moving of the agg object from proof to pub inputs was needed in a sense but it was just because this method expects the "raw" sizes of each. Rather than actually move it back and forth I just provide this method the adjusted sizes. BTW I think the long term solution for this dummy proof is just to read in some data from a file or something. This is too brittle
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well we could just pass the unadjusted values to the
create_dummy_vkey_and_proof
function as well and handle it thereThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually did it that way first but found this to be slightly clearer since its external to the method where we know about the structure of the proof/pub inputs. Either way its kind of bad but its better than it was. I'll hopefully have time to clean all of this up more soon