Conversation
a6efcf8 to
e963961
Compare
268ccfc to
69374f1
Compare
e963961 to
c064327
Compare
69374f1 to
e8236c1
Compare
c064327 to
c0bb6ae
Compare
e8236c1 to
effb0c3
Compare
amosStarkware
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @dorimedini-starkware)
rust-toolchain.toml line 2 at r1 (raw file):
[toolchain] channel = "1.87"
is there no file in the repo that defines what Rust version to run locally?
i.e., if I'm running a test / some target locally, what decides what Rust version I'm using? only my installed version?
if yes - should we tell people to upgrade their installation, or is this not needed because 1.86->1.87 isn't breaking?
Code quote:
channel = "1.87"c0bb6ae to
678df47
Compare
effb0c3 to
f8d4faf
Compare
dorimedini-starkware
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @amosStarkware)
rust-toolchain.toml line 2 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, amosStarkware wrote…
is there no file in the repo that defines what Rust version to run locally?
i.e., if I'm running a test / some target locally, what decides what Rust version I'm using? only my installed version?
if yes - should we tell people to upgrade their installation, or is this not needed because 1.86->1.87 isn't breaking?
when you run cargo commands, the rust-toolchain.toml is checked and the required tooling is auto-installed.
you should already have 1.87 installed locally (this is the rust version currently on main-v0.14.0).
if you want to test this - checkout the next branch (07-01-ci_rust_1.88), and run cargo build workspace_tests or some short cargo command. you should see rust 1.88 being installed
f8d4faf to
6abb809
Compare
|
Benchmark movements: tree_computation_flow performance improved 😺 tree_computation_flow time: [34.387 ms 34.424 ms 34.464 ms] change: [-5.3429% -3.6168% -2.0286%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05) Performance has improved. Found 8 outliers among 100 measurements (8.00%) 6 (6.00%) high mild 2 (2.00%) high severe |
amosStarkware
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dorimedini-starkware)

No description provided.