fmt for cairo

[ohad-starkware]

fmt for cairo

---

This change is 

[ohad-starkware]

• mem squish #241
• fmt for cairo #237 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 1 of 5 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 of 5 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/mod.rs line 30 at r1 (raw file):

    input: CairoInput,
    track_relations: bool,
    display_components: bool,

Do we want this with 2 different bools?
Why not create a log_level param or something?

Code quote:

    track_relations: bool,
    display_components: bool,

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 1 at r1 (raw file):

use itertools::Itertools;

Is this file only compiles in debug mode?

Code quote:

use itertools::Itertools;

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 589 at r1 (raw file):

}

pub(super) fn indent_component_display<E: FrameworkEval>(

Rename, and also:
why do you need the indented format only here?
For the Opcode components you just printed them regularly.

Do we really need those two functions?

Suggestion:

pub(super) fn indented_component_display<E: FrameworkEval>(

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 1 of 5 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Is this file only compiles in debug mode?

no

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/mod.rs line 30 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Do we want this with 2 different bools?
Why not create a log_level param or something?

with track relations it needs to be a bool because the operation is very slow
wdym by log_level_param? can give an example?
I do think that these two and some other stuff needs to sit in a Cfg struct of sorts, which the CLI will construct.

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 3 of 5 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

no

but should it?
If so, we should probably need to consider if we want to add dependencies to this file

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/mod.rs line 30 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

with track relations it needs to be a bool because the operation is very slow
wdym by log_level_param? can give an example?
I do think that these two and some other stuff needs to sit in a Cfg struct of sorts, which the CLI will construct.

I see, but maybe we want a DebugParams?
Good First Issue?

[ohad-starkware]

Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

but should it?
If so, we should probably need to consider if we want to add dependencies to this file

it's used in real runs to expose debug prints for the CLI, maybe rename the file?

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 589 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Rename, and also:
why do you need the indented format only here?
For the Opcode components you just printed them regularly.

Do we really need those two functions?

I did indent them
yes, it's unreadable without indents

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/mod.rs line 30 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

I see, but maybe we want a DebugParams?
Good First Issue?

we need to expose some API for the CLI to use, the needs are/will dictated by Maya I hope?
from our end, yes good first issue

[shaharsamocha7]

Reviewed 1 of 5 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware)

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/debug.rs line 1 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

it's used in real runs to expose debug prints for the CLI, maybe rename the file?

debugging_tools.rs
not sure

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/prover/src/cairo_air/mod.rs line 30 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

we need to expose some API for the CLI to use, the needs are/will dictated by Maya I hope?
from our end, yes good first issue

Can you add a TODO here to wrap them with a struct?

---

stwo_cairo_prover/crates/adapted_prover/src/main.rs line 32 at r1 (raw file):

    debug_lookup: bool,
    #[structopt(long = "display_components")]
    display_components: bool,

We should consult with maya what should be the params in the CLI

Code quote:

    #[structopt(long = "debug_lookup")]
    debug_lookup: bool,
    #[structopt(long = "display_components")]
    display_components: bool,