Feature/701 execute circuit as part of workstep execution #720
Conversation
ognjenkurtic
requested review from
skarred14,
Therecanbeonlyone1969,
Manik-Jain,
skosito,
Kasshern,
Ybittan and
biscuitdey
as code owners
…ts to circuitService.interface.ts
…the transaction workstep for mil 4
ognjenkurtic
force-pushed
the
feature/701_execute_circuit_as_part_of_workstep_execution
branch
from
b1e96ce
to
54a13fa
Compare
| // to connect worksteps with circuits on the file system. | ||
| // Format is: <path_from_env>/<workstep_name_in_snake_case>_<predefined_suffix>. | ||
| // Will be ditchedcompletely as part of milestone 5. | ||
| private constructCircuitPathsFromWorkstepName(name: string): { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These paths are autogenerated by snarkjs library when npm run snarkjs:circuit {circuitName} is executed. So the naming convention is determined by the snarkjs. We can pass snakeCaseWorkstepName_circuit as the circuitName when running npm run snarkjs:circuit, it will generate the files with the appropriate names.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this makes sense. We want all compiled cirucits and accompanying artifacts to follow a predefined convention - see comment below.
examples/bri-3/.env.sample
Outdated
| @@ -16,5 +16,7 @@ BPI_NATS_SERVER_USER="bpi_operator" | |||
| BPI_NATS_SERVER_PASS="liftboiliftboiliftboiliftboi1" | |||
| BPI_ENCRYPTION_KEY_K_PARAM="yzkXp3vY_AZQ3YfLv9GMRTYkjUOpn9x18gPkoFvoUxQ" | |||
| BPI_ENCRYPTION_KEY_KTY_PARAM="oct" | |||
| SNARKJS_CIRCUIT_KEYS_PATH="zeroKnowledgeKeys/circuit/" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can remove these variables as the paths are autogenerated by the snarkjs library when the npm run snarkjs:circuit {circuitName} script is executed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking in the direction that a workgroup admin would be required to provide a compiled circuit and all the necessary artifacts during the setup phase. They would generate those in their own environment and just place it in a predetermined folder where the BPI has access to it, and would have to follow a predefined naming convention.
This is why i think it makes sense to have the parh as part of configuration, because the BPI admin would be able to choose where to store the artifacts. If you agree, i would keep this config value with slight adjustments based on your inputs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok we can allow workgroup admins to provide compiled circuit and all the related artifacts.
… execution based on this path and introduced convention
ognjenkurtic
deleted the
feature/701_execute_circuit_as_part_of_workstep_execution
branch
Description
This PR prepares everything for the execution of the circuit as part of transactionExecution in the transaction agent. It also introduces and documents a temporary convention by which circuits are connected to worksteps. It also introduces a transactionResult object which stores the results of the execution for future bpi account storage.
Related Issue
#701
Motivation and Context
Sets up the stage for actually executing a circuit and storing the data.
How Has This Been Tested
Manual test by running npm run test and npm run build. More extensive testing, both manual and automated, will follow.
Screenshots (if appropriate)
Types of changes
Checklist