Skip to content

Conversation

@enitrat
Copy link
Member

@enitrat enitrat commented Oct 24, 2025

No description provided.

@enitrat enitrat force-pushed the dev/update-toolchain branch from 878b134 to 22f1667 Compare October 24, 2025 13:11
@claude
Copy link

claude bot commented Oct 24, 2025

Claude finished @enitrat's task —— View job


TLDR

This PR updates the stwo dependency and Rust toolchain from 1.82.0 to 1.83.0. The changes are primarily import path updates from stwo to stwo_prover across the codebase. However, the migration appears incomplete with mixed import patterns that could cause compilation issues.

Code Review Feedback

⚠️ Critical Issue: Incomplete Import Migration

Problem: The PR description mentions updating import paths from stwo to stwo_prover, but the codebase still extensively uses stwo:: imports:

Files with unmigrated stwo:: imports:

  • crates/common/src/execution.rs:4-5 - Core field imports
  • crates/common/src/instruction.rs - Field imports
  • crates/runner/src/vm/mod.rs:14-15 - Core VM imports
  • crates/prover/src/lib.rs:42-45 - Core prover imports
  • All test files in runner crate
  • Documentation files

Expected: All use stwo:: should be use stwo_prover:: based on PR description
Actual: Zero stwo_prover:: imports found in codebase

This suggests either:

  1. Incomplete migration - Some imports were missed
  2. Incorrect PR description - The actual change is different than described
  3. Compilation issues pending - Code may not build correctly

Positive Aspects

Dependency Management:

  • Consistent stwo submodule update to 75a6b0ac9bcc7101d8658445dded51923ab2586f
  • Proper workspace dependency declarations maintained
  • Local patches preserved for development workflow

Toolchain Update:

  • Clean update to Rust nightly-2025-07-14
  • Consistent across all workspace members

Code Organization:

  • No breaking changes to public APIs visible
  • Component structure maintained
  • Test structure preserved

🔍 Security & Performance Considerations

Security: ✅ No security concerns identified

  • Dependency updates are from trusted source (Starkware)
  • No new unsafe code introduced
  • Cryptographic components unchanged

Performance: ✅ No performance regressions expected

  • Core algorithmic logic unchanged
  • Field operations preserved
  • Proof generation pipeline intact

Questions for Author

  1. Import Migration Status: Should all stwo:: imports become stwo_prover::? Currently none are migrated.

  2. Build Status: Does the code currently compile? The mixed import state suggests potential issues.

  3. Test Coverage: Are all tests passing with the new stwo version?

📋 Recommendations

  1. Before Merge: Clarify and complete the import migration strategy
  2. Testing: Run full test suite to verify compatibility
  3. Documentation: Update any stwo version references in docs
  4. CI: Ensure all checks pass before merging

Overall Assessment: Good dependency update but needs completion of import migration to prevent build issues.


Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

.args([
"build",
"-p",
"stwo-prover",
"-p",

P1 Badge Update mdtest build command to new stwo crate name

The stwo-prover crate was renamed to stwo, but build_and_discover_crates still runs cargo build -p "stwo-prover". After this rename the package stwo-prover no longer exists, so invoking the mdtest runner will fail during the build step before tests can execute. The package argument should be updated to -p stwo (or otherwise adjusted) so the helper builds the correct dependency.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants