Conversation
invocamanman
requested review from
Freyskeyd and
atanmarko
and removed request for
a team
| pub fn main() { | ||
| // Read the bridge constraints input from stdin | ||
| let bridge_input: BridgeConstraintsInput = sp1_zkvm::io::read::<BridgeConstraintsInput>(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Verify the bridge constraints - this will panic if verification fails | ||
| bridge_input.verify().unwrap(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Commit the result to indicate successful verification | ||
| sp1_zkvm::io::commit(&true); | ||
| } No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or instead of making a new program which could potentially diverge from what we do in the aggchain proof program, what about using our existing aggchain proof program in optimistic mode instead, which would then vastly focus on the bridge constraints?
| #[derive(Parser)] | ||
| #[command(name = "bridge-constraints-sp1-script")] | ||
| #[command(about = "Bridge Constraints SP1 Proof Test")] | ||
| struct Args { | ||
| #[arg(long, help = "Generate and verify cryptographic proof")] | ||
| prove: bool, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::main] | ||
| async fn main() -> Result<()> { | ||
| // Load environment variables | ||
| dotenv::dotenv().ok(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Parse command line arguments | ||
| let args = Args::parse(); | ||
|
|
||
| println!("🌉 Bridge Constraints SP1 Proof Test"); | ||
| println!("====================================="); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think could be a simple test instead that we could even run in the ci rather than a dedicated binary no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think they should all be CI tests, would be easier for regression testing. No reason to have separate binaries here.
| println!("Executing SP1 program..."); | ||
| let (mut output, report) = client.execute(&elf, &stdin).run()?; | ||
| println!("✓ Executed ({} cycles)", report.total_instruction_count()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and we would just need this in the ci test then, we wont need to generate a proof given that if the sp1 execute succeed then no reason for the actual proof generation to fail
| // Remove comment lines from the JSON string before parsing | ||
| let json_clean: String = CUSTOM_JSON | ||
| .lines() | ||
| .filter(|line| !line.trim_start().starts_with("//")) | ||
| .collect::<Vec<_>>() | ||
| .join("\n"); | ||
|
|
||
| // Parse the JSON into alloy_genesis::Genesis first, then extract the config | ||
| let genesis_parsed: alloy::genesis::Genesis = | ||
| serde_json::from_str(&json_clean).expect("Failed to parse genesis JSON"); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could the function aggchain_proof_contracts::config::parse_evm_sketch_genesis be used here? It could be fixed/updated if needed.
| "isthmusTime": 0 | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
No newline at end of file |
| aggchain-proof-core = { path = "../..", default-features = false } | ||
|
|
||
| [build-dependencies] | ||
| sp1-cli = "=5.0.0" No newline at end of file |
| [dependencies] | ||
| sp1-zkvm = "=5.0.0" | ||
| aggchain-proof-core = { path = "../..", default-features = false } | ||
|
|
||
| [build-dependencies] | ||
| sp1-cli = "=5.0.0" No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use the workspace sp1 dependencies.
| [build-dependencies] | ||
| sp1-build = "5.0.5" | ||
| sp1-cli = "=5.0.0" | ||
|
|
||
| [dependencies] | ||
| aggchain-proof-core = { path = "../.." } | ||
| sp1-sdk = "=5.0.3" | ||
| serde_json = "1.0" | ||
| tokio = { version = "1.40", features = ["full"] } | ||
| anyhow = "1.0" | ||
| dotenv = "0.15.0" | ||
| clap = { version = "4.0", features = ["derive"] } No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use the workspace versions. Otherwise, we will diverge.
| #[derive(Parser)] | ||
| #[command(name = "bridge-constraints-sp1-script")] | ||
| #[command(about = "Bridge Constraints SP1 Proof Test")] | ||
| struct Args { | ||
| #[arg(long, help = "Generate and verify cryptographic proof")] | ||
| prove: bool, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::main] | ||
| async fn main() -> Result<()> { | ||
| // Load environment variables | ||
| dotenv::dotenv().ok(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Parse command line arguments | ||
| let args = Args::parse(); | ||
|
|
||
| println!("🌉 Bridge Constraints SP1 Proof Test"); | ||
| println!("====================================="); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think they should all be CI tests, would be easier for regression testing. No reason to have separate binaries here.
3 participants
Description
Include a test folder where a full bridge proof using Sp1 is done
PR Checklist: