-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
feat: CLI prove use bin name for output path #1675
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
stephenh-axiom-xyz
merged 8 commits into
release-v1.2.1-rc.0
from
feat/prove-default-name
May 27, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d03f069
feat: CLI prove outputs target_name.proof by default
stephenh-axiom-xyz 1a5b58b
fix: verify should fail gracefully if no proofs + init should create dir
stephenh-axiom-xyz f4f95ba
docs: update book with CLI changes
stephenh-axiom-xyz 36535ea
chore: resolve some fmt and clippy issues
stephenh-axiom-xyz 18f14e9
chore: remove redundant test
stephenh-axiom-xyz 952d75b
chore: add print line to specify proof being verified
stephenh-axiom-xyz 9684e3b
feat: ability to verify e2e STARK proof + CLI command (#1689)
stephenh-axiom-xyz f6a2562
chore: println for STARK verification
stephenh-axiom-xyz File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think
verify
should always pass in--proof
to be explicitThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not necessarily opposed to this, but our CLI toolchain generally has the semantic where we allow file inputs to be omitted if there's exactly one option. Given that we error out if there isn't exactly one option, I think it might be good to maintain this behavior in
verify
. Lmk what you think!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think when you do
prove
, because the input (exe) is a generated, and is never really being "used" directly outside of the openvm context, we can use some reasonable default.But I think the "proof" is a bit different in that it's the final object that when will used elsewhere (onchain?) so would make sense to be explicit. Want to avoid the case that user think a proof is verified, but actually they verify something else (on the default path)
wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From earlier discussions with Jonathan, I think we should assume that all of the generated artifacts (i.e.
.pk
,.vk
,.vmexe
, etc.) can and likely will be used somewhere. Default naming is done using the project's structure, which the user should in theory know about and set.I don't think it's a stretch to assume that users will be able to deduce that a
verify
call with no--proof
specified will look in the working directory, especially since that's the output behavior ofprove
? In general I feel like if a user doesprove --proof file.proof
they should know to doverify --proof file.proof
.That being said, regardless of what we choose we should probably output a success message with the proof path. As of now there's no messaging, which does indeed make it difficult to confirm what's going on 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oh i think printing the proof path is a good idea. ok i think this is probably fine