remove retries from stwo_run_and_prove

[nitsan-starkware]

Type

• feature
• bugfix
• dev (no functional changes, no API changes)
• fmt (formatting, renaming)
• build
• docs
• testing

Description

Breaking changes?

• yes
• no

---

This change is 

[nitsan-starkware]

• add save_debug_data to stwo_run_and_prove #262
• remove retries from stwo_run_and_prove #261 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[Yael-Starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @nitsan-starkware)

---

crates/stwo_run_and_prove/src/main.rs line 211 at r1 (raw file):

        Err(e) => {
            error!("Proving failed with error: {}", e);

how do you distinct between error in the proof creation and error in the verification?
maybe printing which one happened.

---

crates/stwo_run_and_prove/src/main.rs line 411 at r1 (raw file):

    #[test]
    fn test_stwo_run_and_prove_proving_failure() {
        let (output_tempfile, proof_tempfile) = run_with_failed_mock_prover();

why did you remove testing a run with verification failure?
I think there should be one case/test for failure of the prover and one case/test for failure of the verification, no?

[nitsan-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Yael-Starkware)

---

crates/stwo_run_and_prove/src/main.rs line 211 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Yael-Starkware (YaelD) wrote…

how do you distinct between error in the proof creation and error in the verification?
maybe printing which one happened.

Done (I’ll check with the Stwo team if we can deduce the error type from the existence of the file).

---

crates/stwo_run_and_prove/src/main.rs line 411 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Yael-Starkware (YaelD) wrote…

why did you remove testing a run with verification failure?
I think there should be one case/test for failure of the prover and one case/test for failure of the verification, no?

As we discussed f2f, there’s no point, because we handle both cases the same way except for the log message.

[Yael-Starkware]

@Yael-Starkware reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @nitsan-starkware)

---

crates/stwo_run_and_prove/src/main.rs line 217 at r2 (raw file):

                ", proof was created."
            };
            error!("Proving failed with error: {e}{proof_msg}");

Suggestion:

            let proof_msg = if is_file_missing_or_empty(&prove_config.proof_path)? {
                error!("Proving failed with error {e}");
            } else {
                error!("Proof verification failed with error {r}, The failed proof was writen into the proof output file.);
            };

[nitsan-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Yael-Starkware)

---

crates/stwo_run_and_prove/src/main.rs line 217 at r2 (raw file):

                ", proof was created."
            };
            error!("Proving failed with error: {e}{proof_msg}");

Done.

[Yael-Starkware]

@Yael-Starkware reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @nitsan-starkware)

[nitsan-starkware]

Merge activity

• Dec 14, 11:54 AM UTC: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• Dec 14, 11:55 AM UTC: Graphite rebased this pull request as part of a merge.
• Dec 14, 12:01 PM UTC: @nitsan-starkware merged this pull request with Graphite.