Skip to content

Conversation

@MarcosNicolau
Copy link
Member

Description

Description of the pull request changes and motivation.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • New feature
  • Bug fix
  • Optimization
  • Refactor

Checklist

  • “Hotfix” to testnet, everything else to staging
  • Linked to Github Issue
  • This change depends on code or research by an external entity
    • Acknowledgements were updated to give credit
  • Unit tests added
  • This change requires new documentation.
    • Documentation has been added/updated.
  • This change is an Optimization
    • Benchmarks added/run
  • Has a known issue
  • If your PR changes the Operator compatibility (Ex: Upgrade prover versions)
    • This PR adds compatibility for operator for both versions and do not change batcher/docs/examples
    • This PR updates batcher and docs/examples to the newer version. This requires the operator are already updated to be compatible

@MarcosNicolau MarcosNicolau marked this pull request as ready for review May 5, 2025 18:44
@MarcosNicolau MarcosNicolau self-assigned this May 5, 2025
Comment on lines 65 to 67
fn hash_leaves(leaves: &[Self::Data]) -> Vec<Self::Node> {
leaves.iter().map(|l| l.0).collect()
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This a bit orthodox, hash_leaves doesn't need to be redefined, but if you need it, then it should use hash_data, else hash_data has no purpose. We can re check it tomorrow

Suggested change
fn hash_leaves(leaves: &[Self::Data]) -> Vec<Self::Node> {
leaves.iter().map(|l| l.0).collect()
}
fn hash_leaves(leaves: &[Self::Data]) -> Vec<Self::Node> {
leaves.iter().map(|l| l.0).collect()
}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are right! Indeed, when testing this in #1915 I had to introduce this fix. I added it here as well 5a28bc8.

Copy link
Contributor

@MauroToscano MauroToscano left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We need to re review the backend definition

@MarcosNicolau MarcosNicolau requested a review from MauroToscano May 7, 2025 14:45
@JuArce JuArce changed the title refactor(agg-mode): migrate merkle tree to lambdaworks refactor(aggregation_mode): migrate merkle tree to lambdaworks May 8, 2025
@MauroToscano MauroToscano added this pull request to the merge queue May 8, 2025
Merged via the queue into staging with commit 0eab47e May 8, 2025
6 checks passed
@MauroToscano MauroToscano deleted the refactor/use-lambdaworks-merkle-tree branch May 8, 2025 20:29
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.

4 participants