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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: refactor the verify api #359
feat: refactor the verify api #359
Changes from 3 commits
75126ac
4f68012
735f164
bce0beb
e5153c4
9fc59c1
02b8078
7e27637
c4bfe60
6061bf6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Should we file an issue for the TODO?
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.
Yes, I think we should.
We can discuss if it is worthy or not, to apply
ZkAccel
on verification.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 see that all the implementations of
VerificationStrategy
haveOutput = Self
.That seems redundant, we could remove this associated type. Then the verification process either returns bool, or the
VerificationStrategy
object, no need to doVerificationStrategy::Output
which is alreadyVerificationStragey
all the time.Also, I think we should discourage the usage of verification functions that return the
VerificationStrategy
because returning abool
is much clearer. Since this PR is scheduled to be merged after the0.4
release, and we determined that in the0.5
release we can remove thehalo2_proofs
legacy layer, maybe we can just remove the verification methods that returnVerificationStrategy
? If not, at least could we mark them as deprecated viacfg
?Or is there any strong reason to keep the API that takes and returns a
VerificationStrategy
object?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 like the proposal from @ed255
And if we break API is indeed a good time to do it!
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.
@ed255
I agree that
Output = Self
is redundant.For the quick patch, I remove the
Output
type fromVerificationStrategy
trait. e5153c4This is related to
process
API.I think this API could be useful for batch verification, like following one.
halo2/halo2_backend/src/plonk/verifier/batch.rs
Lines 93 to 129 in 9fc59c1
The
BatchVerifier
delays the MSM check until it accumulates all the MSM from every batch items.What do you think about this? @ed255 @CPerezz
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.
@ed255 @CPerezz any input about last comment?
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.
The current state of this PR looks good to me (removal of
Output
from trait).