build: add bazel rules

[TzahiTaub]

This change is 

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 13 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 35.00%. Comparing base (033efdb) to head (94821f2).

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/committer_cli/src/main.rs	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##              main       #3       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage   100.00%   35.00%   -65.00%     
============================================
  Files            1        2        +1     
  Lines            7       20       +13     
  Branches         7       20       +13     
============================================
  Hits             7        7               
- Misses           0       13       +13     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 3 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/committer/BUILD line 10 at r1 (raw file):

    edition = "2021",
    proc_macro_deps = all_crate_deps(proc_macro = True),
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],

why does blockifier repo use "//crates:__subpackages__" visibility?

Code quote:

visibility = ["//visibility:public"],

---

crates/committer/BUILD line 11 at r1 (raw file):

    proc_macro_deps = all_crate_deps(proc_macro = True),
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
    deps = all_crate_deps(),

same format and order as the blockifier BUILD file

Suggestion:

    name="committer_exe",
    srcs=glob(["src/**/*.rs"]),
    visibility=["//visibility:public"],
    deps=all_crate_deps(),
    proc_macro_deps=all_crate_deps(proc_macro=True),
    edition="2021",

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 4 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/committer/src/main.rs line 5 at r1 (raw file):

/// Gets a binary input and an output file from the command line.
/// Reads the input file, adds 1 to each byte, and writes the result to the output file.

forward-facing comment

Suggestion:

/// Main entry point of the committer CLI.

---

crates/committer/src/main.rs line 7 at r1 (raw file):

/// Reads the input file, adds 1 to each byte, and writes the result to the output file.
fn main() {
    // Open the input file

we don't have comment linter scripts ATM

Suggestion:

// Open the input file.

---

crates/committer/src/main.rs line 22 at r1 (raw file):

    }
    std::fs::write(output_file_name, bytes).expect("Failed to write output");
}

remove the dummy logic before merging (we keep the input-output file logic, it will be useful)

Suggestion:

use std::env;
use std::path::Path;

/// Gets a binary input and an output file from the command line.
/// Reads the input file, adds 1 to each byte, and writes the result to the output file.
fn main() {
    // Open the input file
    let args: Vec<String> = env::args().collect();
    let input_file_name = Path::new(&args[1]);
    let output_file_name = Path::new(&args[2]);
    assert!(
        input_file_name.is_absolute() && output_file_name.is_absolute(),
        "Given paths must be absolute"
    );
    
    // Business logic to be implemented here.
    let output = std::fs::read(input_file_name).unwrap();
    
    // Output to file.
    std::fs::write(output_file_name, output).expect("Failed to write output");
}

[TzahiTaub]

Reviewable status: 3 of 5 files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @dorimedini-starkware)

---

crates/committer/BUILD line 10 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

why does blockifier repo use "//crates:__subpackages__" visibility?

I had to change it to use it in the main repo. As far as I understand, the blockifier repo target you mention is not used externally, but is a dependency of the py_lib under crates/native_blockifier/BUILD which is the one that is used externally, and also has a visibility public. We use the target above directly.

---

crates/committer/BUILD line 11 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

same format and order as the blockifier BUILD file

Done.

---

crates/committer/src/main.rs line 5 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

forward-facing comment

Done.

---

crates/committer/src/main.rs line 7 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

we don't have comment linter scripts ATM

Done.

---

crates/committer/src/main.rs line 22 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

remove the dummy logic before merging (we keep the input-output file logic, it will be useful)

Done.

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/committer/src/lib.rs line 0 at r3 (raw file):
ah... didn't notice the file locations...
the committer crate should be a lib crate.

1. restore this file
2. move main.rs into crates/committer_cli/src/main.rs (will need another Cargo.toml for this)

[TzahiTaub]

Reviewable status: 2 of 7 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @dorimedini-starkware)

---

crates/committer/src/lib.rs line at r3 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

ah... didn't notice the file locations...
the committer crate should be a lib crate.

1. restore this file
2. move main.rs into crates/committer_cli/src/main.rs (will need another Cargo.toml for this)

Done.

[TzahiTaub]

Reviewable status: 2 of 9 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @dorimedini-starkware)

---

Cargo.lock line 13 at r4 (raw file):

[[package]]
name = "committer_cli"

Does this make sense? It's like one package in the repo states in depends on another?

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/committer_cli/Cargo.toml line 7 at r4 (raw file):

repository.workspace = true
license-file.workspace = true
description = "Cli for the committer package."

should this be all caps?

Suggestion:

CLI

---

crates/committer_cli/Cargo.toml line 10 at r4 (raw file):

[lints]
workspace = true

you sure this is how we get both clippy and rust lints?

Code quote:

[lints]
workspace = true

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

crates/committer/BUILD line 0 at r4 (raw file):
delete this?

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

[TzahiTaub]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @dorimedini-starkware)

---

crates/committer_cli/Cargo.toml line 10 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

you sure this is how we get both clippy and rust lints?

Yes, for rust/cargo 1.74 and above

---

crates/committer/BUILD line at r4 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

delete this?

Done.

[alon-dotan-starkware]

Reviewed 4 of 7 files at r4.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dorimedini-starkware)

---

Cargo.lock line 13 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, TzahiTaub (Tzahi) wrote…

Does this make sense? It's like one package in the repo states in depends on another?

Why do we need a different crate here?

[TzahiTaub]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dorimedini-starkware)

---

Cargo.lock line 13 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, alon-dotan-starkware wrote…

Why do we need a different crate here?

@dorimedini-starkware ?

[dorimedini-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @alon-dotan-starkware and @TzahiTaub)

---

Cargo.lock line 13 at r4 (raw file):

Previously, TzahiTaub (Tzahi) wrote…

@dorimedini-starkware ?

because this crate is an executable; we want to separate the business logic (library crate) from an executable that wraps it.
the lib crate will be published to crates.io, the executable (only used in our python backend) will not.