-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 208
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
WIP feat: use pattern-based compression #6432
Draft
erights
wants to merge
2
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
markm-compress-with-split-reform
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
+50
−20
Conversation
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
erights
changed the base branch from
markm-split-reform
to
markm-pattern-compress
October 10, 2022 23:10
erights
changed the base branch from
markm-pattern-compress
to
markm-split-reform
October 10, 2022 23:27
erights
changed the title
fix: compress with split reform
fix: pattern-based compress with split reform
Oct 10, 2022
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
October 10, 2022 23:35
a7e2b86
to
b510e73
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-split-reform
branch
from
October 11, 2022 04:19
3476d57
to
e4e6115
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
October 11, 2022 04:20
b510e73
to
b83b479
Compare
erights
changed the title
fix: pattern-based compress with split reform
fix: pattern-based compression with split reform
Oct 11, 2022
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-split-reform
branch
from
October 19, 2022 02:19
e4e6115
to
fac2eba
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
October 19, 2022 02:20
b7312bb
to
f966689
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-split-reform
branch
from
October 20, 2022 07:49
fac2eba
to
ab70895
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
October 20, 2022 07:50
f966689
to
7e458fe
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-split-reform
branch
from
November 5, 2022 03:21
ab70895
to
0bf4739
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
November 5, 2022 03:22
7e458fe
to
f77aa27
Compare
See #9232 re CI failure |
michaelfig
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
2 times, most recently
from
April 15, 2024 19:45
94ae720
to
010f2bc
Compare
michaelfig
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
April 15, 2024 20:23
010f2bc
to
0fe4755
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
April 16, 2024 22:23
0fe4755
to
ab10583
Compare
mergify bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
<!-- < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < ☺ v ✰ Thanks for creating a PR! ✰ ☺ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> <!-- Most PRs should close a specific Issue. All PRs should at least reference one or more Issues. Edit and/or delete the following lines as appropriate (note: you don't need both `refs` and `closes` for the same one): --> closes: #9232 refs: #6432 ## Description The `restore-node` Github action was updating the timestamp on `package.json` if there was an `#endo-branch: XXX` setting on the PR. This caused `agd-builder.sh` to rebuild the cached build artifacts unnecessarily, including using incorrect `@endo/*` package versions (the ones in the PR's `package.json`s, not the ones from branch `XXX`). Now the `package.json` is copied (preserving its timestamp), and moved back into place after installing any replaced packages. <!-- Add a description of the changes that this PR introduces and the files that are the most critical to review. --> ### Security Considerations n/a <!-- Does this change introduce new assumptions or dependencies that, if violated, could introduce security vulnerabilities? How does this PR change the boundaries between mutually-suspicious components? What new authorities are introduced by this change, perhaps by new API calls? --> ### Scaling Considerations With this PR, shorter CI runs. <!-- Does this change require or encourage significant increase in consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, on-chain storage, message exchanges, or other scarce resources? If so, can that be prevented or mitigated? --> ### Documentation Considerations n/a <!-- Give our docs folks some hints about what needs to be described to downstream users. Backwards compatibility: what happens to existing data or deployments when this code is shipped? Do we need to instruct users to do something to upgrade their saved data? If there is no upgrade path possible, how bad will that be for users? --> ### Testing Considerations n/a <!-- Every PR should of course come with tests of its own functionality. What additional tests are still needed beyond those unit tests? How does this affect CI, other test automation, or the testnet? --> ### Upgrade Considerations n/a <!-- What aspects of this PR are relevant to upgrading live production systems, and how should they be addressed? -->
@erights, it looks like CI is successful now (modulo Cloudflare pages build). I think you can continue with testing and resolving conflicts here. |
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
3 times, most recently
from
April 29, 2024 02:28
5df92df
to
2904c1c
Compare
erights
added a commit
to endojs/endo
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
closes: #XXXX refs: #2248 #1584 Agoric/agoric-sdk#6432 ## Description Pure refactor. Changes only static info. Mostly more consistent and more readable use of `@import`. One case made less readable: Remove newlines within a large `@import` directive. The reason is that `yarn lerna run build:types` chokes on those newlines. TODO minimal repro + report issue. Extracted from other PRs #1584 #2248 which are now staged on this one. But this should be a reviewable and mergeable improvement regardless of whether we move forward on the others. ### Security Considerations none ### Scaling Considerations none ### Documentation Considerations none ### Testing Considerations none ### Compatibility Considerations none ### Upgrade Considerations none - ~[ ] Includes `*BREAKING*:` in the commit message with migration instructions for any breaking change.~ - ~[ ] Updates `NEWS.md` for user-facing changes.~
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
April 29, 2024 21:48
2904c1c
to
47cc7d5
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
2 times, most recently
from
May 9, 2024 00:16
b24cae0
to
53dba29
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
June 2, 2024 19:32
dfae2c8
to
f417938
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
2 times, most recently
from
June 13, 2024 14:09
af411ac
to
e0e3932
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
June 22, 2024 04:01
e0e3932
to
618971a
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
July 3, 2024 00:29
618971a
to
634bd34
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
2 times, most recently
from
August 5, 2024 00:10
f9c5d02
to
80f5d0c
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
3 times, most recently
from
September 7, 2024 20:50
ff230fb
to
e9c28f6
Compare
erights
force-pushed
the
markm-compress-with-split-reform
branch
from
October 14, 2024 20:40
e9c28f6
to
79040b4
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
#endo-branch: markm-pattern-based-compression-2
Won't work until updated to an endo incorporating endojs/endo#1584
Fixes #3167
Modified SwingSet's virtual object stores so that if they have a
stateShape
, they also use it for compression.Modified SwingSet's virtual mapStores so that if they have a
valueShape
option, they also use it for compression.Modified ERTP's paymentLedger to provide the
amountShape
as thevalueShape
option for the durable ledger mapStore.Verified in the debugger that we now only store a singleton array around the value itself, dropping the enclosing amount structure and the brand which is always the same for a given ledger mapStore. IOW, instead of storing the serialization of
for every live payment, with this PR we store the serialization of
for every live payment. This is not just a savings because it is smaller. We also avoid needing to adjust the refcount of their common
moolaBrand
.Once we've switched to smallcaps, the serialization of
[2n]
is tiny.After rebasing on #6431 , I verified in the debugger that invitations benefit additionally from InvitationElementShape. Will be nice to look at once further combined with smallcaps.
@dtribble @turadg @FUDCo @gibson042 @mhofman when it is ready I'll ask you to review. Until then please ignore.