refactor!: generalize ProverEvaluate::result_evaluate and final_round_evaluate to multiple tables
#272
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
iajoiner
force-pushed
the
refactor/prover
branch
from
035e77e
to
48bfbe1
Compare
2 tasks
iajoiner
force-pushed
the
refactor/prover
branch
from
48bfbe1
to
a9b9aa8
Compare
JayWhite2357
requested changes
Oct 17, 2024
| alloc: &'a Bump, | ||
| _accessor: &'a dyn DataAccessor<C::Scalar>, | ||
| ) -> Column<'a, C::Scalar> { | ||
| let table_length = builder.table_length(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we remove FinalRoundBuilder::table_length since it no longer should be used?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. That's overdue. In fact we really need to have one FinalRoundBuilder per ProofPlan.
| builder: &mut FinalRoundBuilder<'a, C::Scalar>, | ||
| _alloc: &'a Bump, | ||
| accessor: &'a dyn DataAccessor<C::Scalar>, | ||
| ) -> Column<'a, C::Scalar> { | ||
| let column = accessor.get_column(self.column_ref); | ||
| assert!(column.len() == table_length); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What guarantees this always occurs? Please add a comment explaining why this is safe.
NIT:
Suggested change
| assert!(column.len() == table_length); | |
| assert_eq!(column.len(), table_length); |
| @@ -57,11 +57,11 @@ impl<C: Commitment> ProofExpr<C> for LiteralExpr<C::Scalar> { | |||
| #[tracing::instrument(name = "LiteralExpr::prover_evaluate", level = "debug", skip_all)] | |||
| fn prover_evaluate<'a>( | |||
| &self, | |||
| builder: &mut FinalRoundBuilder<'a, C::Scalar>, | |||
| table_length: usize, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
builder.mle_evaluations.input_one_evaluation in verifier_evaluate also depends on table length, so we should handle that with this change as well.
iajoiner
force-pushed
the
refactor/prover
branch
from
a9b9aa8
to
992adc2
Compare
…und_evaluate` to multiple tables - add `table_length` to `ProofExpr::prover_evaluate` - generalize `ProverEvaluate::result_evaluate` - generalize `ProverEvaluate::final_round_evaluate`
iajoiner
force-pushed
the
refactor/prover
branch
from
992adc2
to
c76910a
Compare
|
Closed in favor of #334 |
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.
Please be sure to look over the pull request guidelines here: https://github.com/spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#submit-pr.
Please go through the following checklist
!is used if and only if at least one breaking change has been introduced.source scripts/run_ci_checks.sh.Rationale for this change
In order to complete #121 and #122 we need to allow
ProofPlancomposition and multiple table support. In particular we have to allowProofExpr::prover_evaluateto accepttable_lengths that are not identical toproof_builder.table_lengthdue toProofPlancomposition. This is the latest PR for this.What changes are included in this PR?
table_lengthtoProofExpr::prover_evaluate.ProverEvaluate::result_evaluate.ProverEvaluate::final_round_evaluate.Are these changes tested?
Existing tests should pass.