proof-producer: add trace collector tool #375
Conversation
oclaw
force-pushed
the
feature/trace-collector-tool
branch
2 times, most recently
from
549d042 to
c744a4d
Compare
oclaw
force-pushed
the
feature/trace-collector-tool
branch
from
c744a4d to
256443b
Compare
| - "contracts/tracer_data.sol" | ||
|
|
||
| invocations: | ||
| - name: "simple-increment" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is how data preparation for the concrete test case looks like. Can be used for filtering
| - name: "simple-increment" | ||
| description: "Single increment call test" | ||
| contract_name: SimpleStorage | ||
| traces_output_path: "simple/simple_inc_and_keccak" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Relative path for writing output
| description: "Single increment call test" | ||
| contract_name: SimpleStorage | ||
| traces_output_path: "simple/simple_inc_and_keccak" | ||
| calls: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Arguments for nil_block_generator call-contract call
oclaw
force-pushed
the
feature/trace-collector-tool
branch
from
256443b to
e6d1ac5
Compare
proof-producer/tests/bin/proof-producer/resources/traces/readme.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| - Define all Solitidy files you want to compile | ||
| - Prepare subdirectory for traces to be put (e.g. `my_test_case/trace_files`) | ||
| - Add invocations you want to test (contract name, method call sequence, directory for traces to be stored) | ||
| - Run `collector.py --config=collector_config.yaml --invocation=<your_invocation_name>[omit argument to recollect traces]` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
may be make sense add set of full command lines for update traces, or simple bash script?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It actually will consist only of mkdir + invocation of the script :) (editing of the YAML from bash does not seem reasonable to me)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it seems not make sense. As far i see collector.py --config=collector_config.yaml generate tracess for all cases.
But it's not clear from readme.
Let's replace section Trace validity test cases to Update traces with single command, and sub sections which describe how prepare data for hash miss match broken index
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have tried to highlight this case but it obviously was not clear enough
Restructured readme, now it has sections Update traces and How to add new test case
|
|
||
| # path to the directory with built nil (https://github.com/NilFoundation/nil) binaries | ||
| # set it to your local path | ||
| root: "/path/to/your/nil/directory" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What difference vs NIL_ROOT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIL_ROOT inside the script obtains its value from this variable, it is not an actual env var, just a placeholder for an another yaml key. Did not come with more convenient way to do this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is also highlighted inside the config.yaml content btw
| - Define all Solitidy files you want to compile | ||
| - Prepare subdirectory for traces to be put (e.g. `my_test_case/trace_files`) | ||
| - Add invocations you want to test (contract name, method call sequence, directory for traces to be stored) | ||
| - Run `collector.py --config=collector_config.yaml --invocation=<your_invocation_name>[omit argument to recollect traces]` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it seems not make sense. As far i see collector.py --config=collector_config.yaml generate tracess for all cases.
But it's not clear from readme.
Let's replace section Trace validity test cases to Update traces with single command, and sub sections which describe how prepare data for hash miss match broken index
proof-producer/tests/bin/proof-producer/resources/traces/readme.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Added python script that is able to collect all the traces that are used in current circuit test set
Traces are not changed from the business logic perspective but were recollected via this new pipeline as the PoC