Skip to content

Conversation

@topologoanatom
Copy link
Contributor

@topologoanatom topologoanatom commented Jan 20, 2026

Fixes: #197

Description

Changing the heuristics for removing debug wrappers inside the jet result parser.

This approach is fragile, but it will suffice until the assertl-based debugging strategy is replaced.

@KyrylR
Copy link
Collaborator

KyrylR commented Jan 20, 2026

Pls follow the: https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/SimplicityHL/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

@KyrylR
Copy link
Collaborator

KyrylR commented Jan 21, 2026

Could you bump the patch version pls?

@topologoanatom
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could you bump the patch version pls?

bumped to 0.4.1

Copy link
Collaborator

@KyrylR KyrylR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 46a413c

@KyrylR
Copy link
Collaborator

KyrylR commented Jan 22, 2026

@topologoanatom Commits should be signed

Copy link
Collaborator

@KyrylR KyrylR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 11a03ba

@KyrylR KyrylR merged commit 7b0129d into BlockstreamResearch:master Jan 22, 2026
10 checks passed
@apoelstra
Copy link
Contributor

Heads up that 352b58b does not pass tests. This makes bisecting the repo harder. Broken unit tests should be annotated with #[ignore] with a comment explaining that they will be fixed in later commits. Alternately, they can assert the wrong thing with a comment explaining that the assertion will be fixed in later commits.

@KyrylR thanks for tagging and publishing -- FYI I usually post a comment saying that I did so, because it's easy to forget.

@apoelstra
Copy link
Contributor

I would also prefer that the PR description describe what's going on -- that we are changing our heuristic for removing debug wrappers in our trace logic, that this is not a great solution but in #197 we agreed it was a good thing to do for now, and that there is a version bump in this PR.

@apoelstra
Copy link
Contributor

Version bumps should also have a CHANGELOG entry. It looks like this release included both this PR and #187 (as well as some admin stuff that doesn't need to be in the changelog).

@KyrylR
Copy link
Collaborator

KyrylR commented Jan 22, 2026

Ohh, sorry, I got it

Basically, because we added a reproduction test in 352b58b and did not immediately implement a fix, local tests failed

I will create a new PR to update the CHANGELOG a little bit later

@KyrylR
Copy link
Collaborator

KyrylR commented Feb 10, 2026

Updated CHANGELOG #215

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Log trace displays incorrect values for arithmetic jets

3 participants