[compiler-v2] Finishing refactoring of abilities + type checker overhaul #12675

wrwg · 2024-03-25T22:59:53Z

Description

This concludes moving all ability checking into the type inference algorithm by representing checks as type constraints. It also introduces some new constraints to deal with some other checks which have done previously ad-hoc (whether types are allowed to be references, tuples, phantom).

The PR turned out to be a larger refactoring of the checker as expected. On the good side, a lot of redundant ad-hoc code could be removed and replaced by more generic code.

Closes #12437 and closes #12674

Type of Change

Which Components or Systems Does This Change Impact?

How Has This Been Tested?

New and existing tests

Key Areas to Review

Baseline files

trunk-io · 2024-03-25T22:59:56Z

⏱️ 39h 8m total CI duration on this PR

Job	Cumulative Duration	Recent Runs
rust-unit-tests	4h 51m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
rust-unit-coverage	4h 31m	🟩
rust-smoke-tests	4h 16m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟥 🟩 (+3 more)
windows-build	4h 9m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
rust-smoke-coverage	3h 45m	🟩
execution-performance / single-node-performance	3h 16m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+4 more)
rust-move-unit-coverage	3h 11m	🟩 ⬜ 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+7 more)
forge-compat-test / forge	1h 44m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+2 more)
forge-e2e-test / forge	1h 38m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+2 more)
rust-images / rust-all	1h 25m	⬜ 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+4 more)
rust-lints	1h 18m	🟩 🟥 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
run-tests-main-branch	1h	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
cli-e2e-tests / run-cli-tests	55m	🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟩 (+2 more)
check	51m	⬜ 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
rust-move-tests	33m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
check-dynamic-deps	30m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
general-lints	27m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
indexer-grpc-e2e-tests / test-indexer-grpc-docker-compose	17m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+2 more)
file_change_determinator	8m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
node-api-compatibility-tests / node-api-compatibility-tests	6m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+2 more)
semgrep/ci	6m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
file_change_determinator	3m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
file_change_determinator	2m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+6 more)
file_change_determinator	2m	⬜ 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+4 more)
execution-performance / file_change_determinator	2m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+4 more)
permission-check	46s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
permission-check	43s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+9 more)
permission-check	39s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
permission-check	33s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+8 more)
permission-check	30s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+4 more)
determine-docker-build-metadata	17s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩 (+4 more)
upload-to-codecov	17s	🟩

🚨 4 jobs on the last run were significantly faster/slower than expected

Job	Duration	vs 7d avg
forge-compat-test / forge	17m	14m
rust-lints	6m	7m
rust-images / rust-all	28s	16m
rust-move-tests	3s	8m

_{settings ⋅ feedback ⋅ docs ⋅ learn more about trunk.io}

codecov · 2024-03-25T23:14:09Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.24176% with 183 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.6%. Comparing base (36855e7) to head (783eb10).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs	78.3%	140 Missing ⚠️
...d_party/move/move-model/src/builder/exp_builder.rs	90.6%	34 Missing ⚠️
third_party/move/move-model/src/builder/mod.rs	18.1%	9 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #12675       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    69.8%    62.6%     -7.2%     
===========================================
  Files        2293      819     -1474     
  Lines      436088   183454   -252634     
===========================================
- Hits       304431   114978   -189453     
+ Misses     131657    68476    -63181

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

vineethk

Only minor comments. Looks great!

vineethk · 2024-03-27T15:53:51Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

-    SomeReceiverFunction(Symbol, Option<Vec<Type>>, Vec<(Loc, Type)>, Type),
-    /// The type variable must be instantiated with a type which has the given ability
-    HasAbility(Ability),
+    SomeReceiverFunction(


Appreciate the notes added.

vineethk · 2024-03-27T15:56:08Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

+    ),
+    /// The type must not be reference because it is used as the type of some field or
+    /// as a type argument.
+    NoReference,


nit: Using NotReference, NotTuple, etc., may be a bit clearer. But because there is a clear comment, it is up to you.

Not sure why this would be clearer? I thought NoReference is the right English here, compared to NotReference which is not a valid word.

The constraint is that it is "not a reference" => NotReference.

Both NoReference and NotReference are not valid words by themselves.

Anyway, I have marked this as a nit because the comment makes the constraint clear to me.

vineethk · 2024-03-27T16:10:51Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

@@ -309,13 +619,29 @@ impl Constraint {
 /// Represents an error resulting from type unification.
 #[derive(Debug)]
 pub enum TypeUnificationError {
+    /// The two types mismatch: `TypeMatch(actual, expected)`


Suggested change

/// The two types mismatch: `TypeMatch(actual, expected)`

/// The two types mismatch: `TypeMismatch(actual, expected)`

vineethk · 2024-03-27T16:23:37Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

-    /// Lifts a type mismatch error to a pair of context type
+    /// Lifts a type unification error from the critical pair to the given context type.
+    /// A critical pair in type unification is the sub-term in which two type terms disagree,
+    /// e.g for `S<t> != S<t'>`, `(t, t`)` is the critical pair.


Suggested change

/// e.g for `S<t> != S<t'>`, `(t, t`)` is the critical pair.

/// e.g for `S<t> != S<t'>`, `(t, t')` is the critical pair.

vineethk · 2024-03-27T16:26:44Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

+                        };
+                        // Providing instantiation context for number constraints is
+                        // confusing for users. Those constraints are used in
+                        // operators like `*` and so on but not visible to the use.


Suggested change

// operators like `*` and so on but not visible to the use.

// operators like `*` and so on but not visible to the user.

vineethk · 2024-03-27T16:42:36Z

...ove/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/v1-operators/casting_operators_types_mismatch.exp

@@ -1,48 +1,48 @@

 Diagnostics:
-error: operand of cast must be a number
+error: expected `u8|u16|u32|u64|u128|u256|num` but found a value of type `S`


nit: looks like we use integer in some error message contexts (eg, in binary_gt_invalid.exp), and u8|....|num here. Maybe we could use integer here too?

Good catch. Done

brmataptos

Looks good, but I haven't finished readng ty.rs.

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

third_party/move/move-model/src/builder/mod.rs

brmataptos · 2024-03-27T21:41:44Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/builder/exp_builder.rs

@@ -374,34 +387,18 @@ impl<'env, 'translator, 'module_translator> ExpTranslator<'env, 'translator, 'mo
        &mut self,
        node_id: NodeId,
        ty: &Type,
-        reported_types: &mut BTreeSet<Type>,
        reported_vars: &mut BTreeSet<u32>,


It would be useful to state in the comment above that

/// Free type variables found are added to `reported_vars`.

brmataptos

Still reading test outputs. Here's one, though.

...y/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/ability_constraint_generic_in_field.move

fEst1ck · 2024-03-28T00:07:31Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

+    /// given a struct with declared abilities.
+    pub fn for_field(struct_abilities: AbilitySet, field_ty: &Type) -> Vec<Constraint> {
+        let mut result = vec![Constraint::NoPhantom, Constraint::NoTuple];
+        // Only if the field is not a type parameter, requires abilities. That reflects


We don't need NoReference(true)?

Fields can be references.

brmataptos

The code looks good but we have a number of test regressions, so if you don't fix them here file an issue to make sure we don't miss them.

Notably:

we don't seem to type-check structs until they are used
maybe also inline functions
we don't seem to check for reference fields of structs (Zekun noted in the code)
we could do better with types like u8|u16|..|num and u16|u32|...|num
when we infer types for variables it would be a bonus if we could show the reason when we complain about an assignment of a different type
other items I may have forgotten.
Fix field reference types and I think we can record the test regressions and move on.

I checked all the tests. I hope you will forgive any mistakes I made, since Github makes it really hard to review all my comments before sending them.

brmataptos · 2024-03-28T05:14:28Z

third_party/move/move-model/src/ty.rs

+            TypeParameter(_) => true,
+            Tuple(ts) => ts.iter().any(|t| t.depends_from_type_parameter()),
+            Vector(t) => t.depends_from_type_parameter(),
+            Struct(_, _, ts) => ts.iter().any(|t| t.depends_from_type_parameter()),


nit: I think you could use

Tuple(ts) | Struct(_, _, ts) | ResourceDomain(_, _, Some(ts) => ts.iter().any(|t| t.depends_from_type_parameter()), Vector(t) | Reference(_, t) | TypeDomain(t) => t.depends_from_type_parameter(), Fun(t, r) => t.depends_from_type_parameter() || r.depends_from_type_parameter()

to be a little more concise and easier to see how each is handled.

brmataptos · 2024-03-28T05:34:12Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/instantiate_signatures.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+
+Diagnostics:
+error: type `R` is missing required ability `drop`


FYI: before the move, this file had errors at lines 11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 33, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45. You may want to compare with the original test output.

Do we perhaps not check struct field constraints until the struct is used?

Yes, this bug is now fixed.

Still missing errors, compared to main:

v1 had: 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 v2 had: 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 33, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45 now have: 11, 12, 13, 14, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45

Good catch, there was another bug which lead to that types of parameters were not checked. Fixed now.

OK. I see you're still missing some errors that V1 had, but these seem to all be redundant (same type instantiation as a previous error), so I'll assume that's why we don't have them.

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/invalid_struct_def.exp

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/missing_key.exp

...y/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/ability_constraint_generic_in_field.move

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/eq_invalid.exp

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/expected_actual_assign.exp

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/recursive_structs_malformed.exp

...rty/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/type_variable_join_threaded_pack_invalid.exp

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/vector_with_non_base_type.exp

wrwg · 2024-03-28T21:44:41Z

Thanks for the reviews, all issues addressed.

brmataptos

Still some errors missing.

brmataptos · 2024-03-28T23:14:42Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/instantiate_signatures.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+
+Diagnostics:
+error: type `R` is missing required ability `drop`


Still missing errors, compared to main:

v1 had: 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 v2 had: 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 33, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45 now have: 11, 12, 13, 14, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45

brmataptos

One more I think.

brmataptos · 2024-03-28T23:28:18Z

...rty/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/phantom_param_op_abilities_invalid.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+
+Diagnostics:


I still don't see it. Perhaps you forgot to push?

brmataptos · 2024-03-28T23:34:13Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/conditional_global_operations.exp

   ┌─ tests/checking/typing/conditional_global_operations.move:15:20
   │
 15 │         move_to(s, Box<R> { f: R {} });
   │                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-


Errors are now all there, but they used to complain about ability 'key' and now they complain about ability 'store'. Perhaps we could mention multiple abilities if multiple are required and missing?

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/expected_actual_assign.exp

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/constant_inference.exp

wrwg

Thanks for the review, comments addressed. I also spend some time to generally get error positions better. Now type parameter constraint errors are actually reported at the type argument, and constraints for inferred types at the function/struct which introduces the type parameters.

There seem to be still some errors missing compared to v1 but this stems from removing duplicate errors. If in a function a particular type has been identified to not satisfy e.g. an ability constraint, this will be only reported once in this function. v2 reports it multiple times.

wrwg · 2024-03-29T02:22:33Z

...rty/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/phantom_param_op_abilities_invalid.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+
+Diagnostics:


AH, now I see what you mean. Those drop errors on code level are later handled on bytecode level in AbilityProcessor. There is a test in ability-check/assign.rs.

wrwg · 2024-03-29T02:24:46Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/conditional_global_operations.exp

   ┌─ tests/checking/typing/conditional_global_operations.move:15:20
   │
 15 │         move_to(s, Box<R> { f: R {} });
   │                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-


The error before was imprecise. For Box to have key, R needs to have store. I improved the error positions a bit (this is actually a requirement on the inferred type of move_to), as well as add now the constraints from type parameters to the notes, so you can see it was key which was originally requested.

error: type `R` is missing required ability `store` (type was inferred) ┌─ tests/checking/typing/conditional_global_operations.move:15:9 │ 15 │ move_to(s, Box<R> { f: R {} }); │ ^^^^^^^ │ = required by instantiating type parameter `T` of struct `Box` = required by instantiating type parameter `T:key` of function `move_to`

wrwg · 2024-03-29T16:02:49Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/instantiate_signatures.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+
+Diagnostics:
+error: type `R` is missing required ability `drop`


Good catch, there was another bug which lead to that types of parameters were not checked. Fixed now.

brmataptos

So close. I think there's a case missing involving phantom type parameters.

brmataptos · 2024-03-29T19:55:48Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/instantiate_signatures.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+
+Diagnostics:
+error: type `R` is missing required ability `drop`


OK. I see you're still missing some errors that V1 had, but these seem to all be redundant (same type instantiation as a previous error), so I'll assume that's why we don't have them.

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/missing_key.exp

brmataptos · 2024-03-29T20:10:13Z

...party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/ability_constraint_prims_invalid.exp

+11 │     fun cds<T: copy + drop + store>() {}
+   │             - declaration of type parameter `T`
+   ·
+29 │         cds<vector<Cup<u8>>>();


V1 had errors on 31(c), 32(c), 33(k), 34(k), 35(k), 36(k), 37(cs), 38(c), 39(cds). These are phantom parameters, maybe that's the issue?

(c=copy, k=key, d=drop, s=store)

brmataptos · 2024-03-29T20:15:28Z

...rty/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/ability_constraint_tparams_invalid.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+


Missing errors for lines 29+, these relate to phantom parameters.

brmataptos · 2024-03-29T20:33:39Z

...rty/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/ability_constraint_structs_invalid.exp

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+


Lines 29 on previously (v1) have errors involving phantom type parameters that are missing now.

… of duplicate removal

wrwg · 2024-03-29T21:01:13Z

So close. I think there's a case missing involving phantom type parameters.

The reason for the remaining missing errors is duplicate removal. I extended one of those tests to demonstrate this.

Basically, once we reported say that signer is missing drop in one function context, we don't do again, regardless of context. That's why the phantom errors are not reported, because they go through all types again.

github-actions · 2024-03-29T21:55:36Z

✅ Forge suite `realistic_env_max_load` success on `783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa`

two traffics test: inner traffic : committed: 7932 txn/s, latency: 4954 ms, (p50: 4800 ms, p90: 5700 ms, p99: 10500 ms), latency samples: 3419080
two traffics test : committed: 100 txn/s, latency: 1907 ms, (p50: 1800 ms, p90: 2100 ms, p99: 6500 ms), latency samples: 1840
Latency breakdown for phase 0: ["QsBatchToPos: max: 0.226, avg: 0.204", "QsPosToProposal: max: 0.278, avg: 0.257", "ConsensusProposalToOrdered: max: 0.474, avg: 0.427", "ConsensusOrderedToCommit: max: 0.329, avg: 0.312", "ConsensusProposalToCommit: max: 0.752, avg: 0.739"]
Max round gap was 1 [limit 4] at version 1586204. Max no progress secs was 4.644276 [limit 15] at version 1586204.
Test Ok

github-actions · 2024-03-29T21:59:03Z

✅ Forge suite `compat` success on `aptos-node-v1.9.5` ==> `783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa`

Compatibility test results for aptos-node-v1.9.5 ==> 783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa (PR)
1. Check liveness of validators at old version: aptos-node-v1.9.5
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::liveness-check : committed: 5290 txn/s, latency: 5639 ms, (p50: 4800 ms, p90: 9600 ms, p99: 13900 ms), latency samples: 232780
2. Upgrading first Validator to new version: 783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::single-validator-upgrade : committed: 854 txn/s, latency: 32350 ms, (p50: 38800 ms, p90: 47600 ms, p99: 49000 ms), latency samples: 57220
3. Upgrading rest of first batch to new version: 783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::half-validator-upgrade : committed: 18 txn/s, submitted: 144 txn/s, expired: 125 txn/s, latency: 2551 ms, (p50: 2600 ms, p90: 3100 ms, p99: 3100 ms), latency samples: 5767
4. upgrading second batch to new version: 783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::rest-validator-upgrade : committed: 2313 txn/s, latency: 12815 ms, (p50: 13500 ms, p90: 19900 ms, p99: 20500 ms), latency samples: 108740
5. check swarm health
Compatibility test for aptos-node-v1.9.5 ==> 783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa passed
Test Ok

wrwg requested review from vineethk, rahxephon89, fEst1ck and brmataptos March 25, 2024 22:59

wrwg force-pushed the wg-receiver branch from a1691ef to e6dc4e9 Compare March 25, 2024 23:19

wrwg marked this pull request as draft March 26, 2024 03:27

wrwg mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2024

[compiler-v2] Receiver functions #12223

Merged

wrwg force-pushed the wg-receiver branch from 6a955da to 03be54c Compare March 26, 2024 15:08

Base automatically changed from wg-receiver to main March 26, 2024 15:50

wrwg force-pushed the wrwg/inst-ability branch from 8512a71 to 537ef6d Compare March 26, 2024 18:30

wrwg marked this pull request as ready for review March 26, 2024 18:30

vineethk approved these changes Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

brmataptos reviewed Mar 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

...y/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/abilities/v1/ability_constraint_generic_in_field.move Show resolved Hide resolved

fEst1ck reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

brmataptos reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

wrwg requested review from fEst1ck and brmataptos March 28, 2024 21:44

wrwg force-pushed the wrwg/inst-ability branch from 3022d08 to ce8d17a Compare March 28, 2024 22:31

wrwg added the CICD:run-e2e-tests when this label is present github actions will run all land-blocking e2e tests from the PR label Mar 28, 2024

brmataptos reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

wrwg force-pushed the wrwg/inst-ability branch from ce8d17a to fc88a57 Compare March 28, 2024 23:31

brmataptos reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

wrwg force-pushed the wrwg/inst-ability branch from f729454 to 5c92a09 Compare March 29, 2024 18:13

wrwg commented Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

wrwg requested a review from brmataptos March 29, 2024 18:17

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Improving error positions, duplicates

e552bba

wrwg force-pushed the wrwg/inst-ability branch from 5c92a09 to e552bba Compare March 29, 2024 19:14

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

brmataptos reviewed Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

Clarifying in one test examples that not all errors are shown because…

783eb10

… of duplicate removal

brmataptos approved these changes Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

wrwg enabled auto-merge (squash) March 29, 2024 21:40

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

wrwg merged commit 7eda6b5 into main Mar 29, 2024
104 of 106 checks passed

wrwg deleted the wrwg/inst-ability branch March 29, 2024 22:14

This was referenced Apr 20, 2024

[Bug] [compiler-v2] Ability check error messages unclear #11376

Closed

[Bug] [move-compiler-v2] missing an error for a tuple-typed local variable #11196

Closed

	/// The two types mismatch: `TypeMatch(actual, expected)`
	/// The two types mismatch: `TypeMismatch(actual, expected)`

	/// e.g for `S<t> != S<t'>`, `(t, t`)` is the critical pair.
	/// e.g for `S<t> != S<t'>`, `(t, t')` is the critical pair.

	// operators like `*` and so on but not visible to the use.
	// operators like `*` and so on but not visible to the user.

		@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@

		Diagnostics:
		error: type `R` is missing required ability `drop`

[compiler-v2] Finishing refactoring of abilities + type checker overhaul #12675

[compiler-v2] Finishing refactoring of abilities + type checker overhaul #12675

Conversation

wrwg commented Mar 25, 2024 • edited

Description

Type of Change

Which Components or Systems Does This Change Impact?

How Has This Been Tested?

Key Areas to Review

trunk-io bot commented Mar 25, 2024 • edited

codecov bot commented Mar 25, 2024 • edited

Codecov Report

vineethk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brmataptos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brmataptos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brmataptos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wrwg commented Mar 28, 2024

brmataptos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

brmataptos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

wrwg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

brmataptos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wrwg commented Mar 29, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

wrwg commented Mar 25, 2024 •

edited

trunk-io bot commented Mar 25, 2024 •

edited

codecov bot commented Mar 25, 2024 •

edited

✅ Forge suite `realistic_env_max_load` success on `783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa`

✅ Forge suite `compat` success on `aptos-node-v1.9.5` ==> `783eb109ab13d156bb67455e487336ca76f25caa`