-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 610
chore: Introduce data structures to hold inputs/outputs of the Merge verification #15735
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
Merged
federicobarbacovi
merged 43 commits into
merge-train/barretenberg
from
fb/merge_verifier_api
Jul 18, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
43 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c0153a5
[empty] Start merge-train. Choo choo.
dfdc1b5
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
3efb90e
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
f447c5a
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
0772339
feat!: Merge with degree check (#15562)
federicobarbacovi d7f0efe
Add merge verification data class
federicobarbacovi 60e0109
Update tests
federicobarbacovi b500f22
Add setter method
federicobarbacovi d79ef31
Add setter method
federicobarbacovi 759432d
Update goblin and client IVC interfaces
federicobarbacovi 1e70c88
Update goblin rec verifier interface
federicobarbacovi 082d155
Update goblin AVM rec verifier interface
federicobarbacovi b53006f
Update rec civc interface
federicobarbacovi 9e9a29f
Comments
federicobarbacovi 5fa5b98
Update tests
federicobarbacovi cd77300
Cleanup
federicobarbacovi de1b171
Fix tests
federicobarbacovi cf6498f
Further fixes
federicobarbacovi 98c1c51
Add reset method for MergeVerificationData
federicobarbacovi a418fbc
Improve tests
federicobarbacovi 9f27abb
[empty] Start merge-train. Choo choo.
6893736
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
6cd32ca
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
29c5a1f
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
921cd03
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
0968cf0
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
de7c071
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
8456fac
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
ad3dea5
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
7ea4056
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
f62ee83
Update data structure
federicobarbacovi 9921f2d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/merge-train/barretenberg' into f…
federicobarbacovi 68dfa18
Update comments
federicobarbacovi 8b71509
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
b59793a
Update goblin interface
federicobarbacovi f883938
Update rec goblin interface
federicobarbacovi 4dc6bf9
Update ClientIVC interface
federicobarbacovi 7efc962
Updates
federicobarbacovi 9ac2ef8
Merge branch 'next' into merge-train/barretenberg
90dfe1f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/merge-train/barretenberg' into f…
federicobarbacovi 1cfbe26
Restore deleted files
federicobarbacovi e24a927
Comments and names
federicobarbacovi 6c6b159
Address comments
federicobarbacovi 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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.
I appreciate what you've done here but I do still find it to be a bit funny because we're passing in the same data
(T_commitments) twice, albeit as a const ref in one case. It does make it slightly clearer because I know exactly what data might be altered.Is it eventually the case that we'll always pass in {
t,T_prev} and always returnT? If so it seems pretty natural to have those inputs passed in to the method (as a const) and have the output passed out (making the output {pairing_points,T}. FWIW I'm perfectly happy to merge this as it is and continue to iterate. I think it will become clearer what to do as this work progressesThere 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.
Yes, it is always going to be the case that we pass in
{t, T_prev}, and returnT. I thought it would be better to have them all in one structure (mostly forClientIVC), but maybe you're right and it's better to simply returnT. We can discuss in next iterations.