[Compiler V2] Check recursive struct definitions #12257

fEst1ck · 2024-02-27T10:05:35Z

Description

This PR adds check for recursive struct definitions in the model builder. That is, no struct S contains a descendant field of type S. See checking/typing/recursive_struct.move for examples.

TODO: add that we can't have recursive structs in the move book.

Fixes #12119

Test Plan

checking/typing/recursive_struct.move

trunk-io · 2024-02-27T10:05:40Z

⏱️ 27h 25m total CI duration on this PR

Job	Cumulative Duration	Recent Runs
rust-move-tests	12h 6m	⬜ 🟥 ⬜ 🟥
rust-unit-tests	12h 6m	⬜ 🟥 ⬜ 🟥
windows-build	1h 19m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
rust-move-unit-coverage	38m	⬜ 🟩 ⬜ 🟩
run-tests-main-branch	27m	🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥
rust-lints	14m	⬜ 🟥 ⬜ 🟥
check	14m	⬜ 🟩 🟩 🟩
check-dynamic-deps	8m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
general-lints	7m	⬜ 🟩 🟩 🟩
semgrep/ci	2m	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
file_change_determinator	57s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
file_change_determinator	51s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
permission-check	19s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
permission-check	14s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
permission-check	14s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩
permission-check	13s	🟩 🟩 🟩 🟩

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

Job	Duration	vs 7d avg
rust-move-tests	6h	19m
rust-unit-tests	6h	31m
run-tests-main-branch	7m	4m
rust-move-unit-coverage	16m	27m

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

codecov · 2024-02-27T10:26:32Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.69281% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 64.0%. Comparing base (1b43e0e) to head (f25596c).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...e/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs	98.6%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             main   #12257    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    63.9%    64.0%            
========================================
  Files         816      817     +1     
  Lines      180914   181062   +148     
========================================
+ Hits       115779   115933   +154     
+ Misses      65135    65129     -6

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

wrwg · 2024-02-28T21:08:00Z

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

+4 │ │     }
+  │ ╰─────^
+  │
+  = S contains T...


You could actually add locations to where T is defined. Check out error_with_hints e.g. in the reference_saftey_processor how to do it. The current approach is also good, but in case you have not seen this.

see #12257 (comment)

wrwg · 2024-02-28T21:14:10Z

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

+
+    /// Gets the display name of the struct type
+    /// Requires: the type is a struct type
+    fn get_struct_type_name(&self, ty: &Type) -> String {


You should use TypeDisplayContext for this, then you do not need those functions, and it prints the instantiation. For now it would be a fully qualified name, but the name will become relative in the local module once my error message PR lands.

For this, you construct a q: QualifiedInstId<StructId>, then call q.to_type().display(context). To construct the context, you'd put the reverse_struct_table and the type parameter names of the type in question into the context.

wrwg · 2024-02-28T21:15:03Z

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

+        &self,
+        path: &Vec<Type>,
+        this_struct_id: QualifiedId<StructId>
+    ) -> Vec<String> {


Return Vec<(Loc, String)> and stick this into error_with_hints. It would be nice if Loc would be that of the field which contributes to the recursion.

I now included the name of the field in the error messages. I didn't use error_with_hints because the trace is not shown in order. See this commit 6c83893 where I used error_with_hints

wrwg · 2024-02-28T23:47:15Z

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

+            let child_name = self.get_struct_type_name(&path[i + 1]);
+            loop_notes.push(format!("{} contains {}...", parent_name, child_name));
+        }
+        loop_notes.push(format!("{} contains {}, which forms a loop.", self.get_struct_type_name(path.last().unwrap()), self.get_struct_display_name_simple(this_struct_id)));


Please align with other error messages. Our convention is to put programming symbols into backticks, hence: "\backquote{}\backquote contains..."

Note that Wolfgang means literal backquotes:

"`{}` contains"

wrwg · 2024-02-28T23:50:08Z

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

+                // checks if `ty` occurs in `path`
+                for parent in path.iter() {
+                    if let Type::Struct(mid, sid, _) = parent {
+                        let parent_id = QualifiedId { module_id: *mid, id: *sid };


mid.qualified(*sid)

wrwg · 2024-02-28T23:54:48Z

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

+                        if parent_id == this_struct_id {
+                            if checking == this_struct_id {
+                                let loop_notes = self.gen_error_msg_for_fields_loop(path, this_struct_id);
+                                self.error_with_notes(loc_checking, &format!("recursive definition {}", self.get_struct_display_name_simple(this_struct_id)),


Why isn't that formatted correctly?

wrwg · 2024-02-28T23:56:54Z

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

+                                return false;
+                            }
+                        }
+                    } else {


If thats unreachable, the idiomatic way would be

let Struct(...) = parent else { panic!("unexpected") }; ...

brmataptos · 2024-03-01T18:18:25Z

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

+            let child_name = self.get_struct_type_name(&path[i + 1]);
+            loop_notes.push(format!("{} contains {}...", parent_name, child_name));
+        }
+        loop_notes.push(format!("{} contains {}, which forms a loop.", self.get_struct_type_name(path.last().unwrap()), self.get_struct_display_name_simple(this_struct_id)));


Note that Wolfgang means literal backquotes:

"`{}` contains"

brmataptos · 2024-03-01T18:21:59Z

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

+
+    /// Checks for recursive definition of structs and adds diagnostics
+    pub fn check_resursive_struct(&self, struct_entry: &StructEntry) {
+        let params = (0..struct_entry.type_params.len()).map(|i| Type::TypeParameter(i as u16)).collect_vec();


This would be a bit more readable if you pull out the len calculation:

let num_params = struct_entry.type_params.len() let params = (0..num_params).map(|i| Type::Parameter(i as u16)).collect_vec();

but I guess that's still pretty ugly. Oh, well..

refactored a bit

fEst1ck · 2024-03-06T10:43:26Z

All comments addressed. PTAL @wrwg @brmataptos

fEst1ck · 2024-03-06T10:44:34Z

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

+33 │ │     }
+   │ ╰─────^
+   │
+   = `type_param::S` contains field `f: type_param::G<type_param::S>`...


Why is this not displayed correctly?

I think Teng already has a fix for this. Just remember to come back to here once his fix landed, can yours land in the meantime

wrwg

Nice error messages now, thanks for trying out the other way to display errors. Yes, those hints are ordered in source order, which maybe confusing for the cycle problem.

wrwg · 2024-03-06T18:07:47Z

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

+33 │ │     }
+   │ ╰─────^
+   │
+   = `type_param::S` contains field `f: type_param::G<type_param::S>`...


I think Teng already has a fix for this. Just remember to come back to here once his fix landed, can yours land in the meantime

vineethk · 2024-03-06T23:33:59Z

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

+    }
+
+    /// Checks for recursive definition of structs and adds diagnostics
+    pub fn check_resursive_struct(&self, struct_entry: &StructEntry) {


Suggested change

pub fn check_resursive_struct(&self, struct_entry: &StructEntry) {

pub fn check_recursive_struct(&self, struct_entry: &StructEntry) {

vineethk · 2024-03-06T23:39:38Z

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

+            ));
+        }
+        loop_notes.push(format!(
+            "`{}` contains field `{}: {}`, which forms a loop.",


Can we please change "loop" to "cycle"? (here and in all the func/var names).

IMO "loop" in this context seems very weird.

vineethk · 2024-03-06T23:47:04Z

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

+        }
+        loop_notes.push(format!(
+            "`{}` contains field `{}: {}`, which forms a loop.",
+            self.get_struct_type_name(&path.last().unwrap().2, this_struct_id),


Use expect instead of unwrap.

Could you please add a note in the function doc that path is expected to be non-empty, else this function will panic?

vineethk · 2024-03-06T23:47:28Z

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

+        &self,
+        path: &Vec<(Loc, Symbol, Type)>,
+        this_struct_id: QualifiedId<StructId>,
+        _loc: Loc,


Why do we have _loc as a parameter?

We may want to use it in the error messages.

vineethk · 2024-03-06T23:49:07Z

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

+        loop_notes
+    }
+
+    /// Checks if a field type occurs in its access path,


Please format the comments to have reasonable number of columns.
This line ends at 58, the next line ends at 132.

Rust fmt does not introduce line breaks in comments, so unfortunately you cannot rely on that.

vineethk · 2024-03-07T00:07:17Z

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

+                    {
+                        path.push((ty_loc.clone(), *field_name, ty.clone()));
+                        let field_ty_instantiated = field_ty_uninstantiated.instantiate(insts);
+                        // short-curcuit upon first recursive occurence found


Suggested change

// short-curcuit upon first recursive occurence found

// short-circuit upon first recursive occurrence found

Also, we are not doing what this comment claims. It is because the return values are flipped.

Please add this test case (or similar), which demonstrates the issue:

struct X { f: Y, g: Y, } struct Y { f: X, g: X }

vineethk · 2024-03-07T00:09:46Z

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

+                                    ),
+                                    loop_notes,
+                                );
+                                return true;


Does this match the function doc on return value?

vineethk · 2024-03-07T00:10:02Z

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

+                            }
+                        }
+                    } else {
+                        panic!("field access path contains non-struct")


Suggested change

panic!("field access path contains non-struct")

unreachable!("field access path contains non-struct")

vineethk · 2024-03-07T00:11:12Z

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

+                                self.error_with_notes(
+                                    loc_checking,
+                                    &format!(
+                                        "recursive definition {}",


Suggested change

"recursive definition {}",

"recursive definition of struct `{}`",

Or something similar.

I change the name to "cyclic data" as in V1, since the problem is not always recursive definition

vineethk · 2024-03-07T00:29:33Z

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

+                    }
+                }
+                if let Some(fields) = &this_struct_entry.fields {
+                    // check for descendant fields recursively


If we consider the code:

struct X { a: Y, b: Y, c: Y, .. z: Y }

where Y is a struct with several other fields (including possibly other structs, but none of them recursive), then we will explore a multiplicative number of paths (most of them unnecessarily)?

That is, if X has 10 fields that are Ys, and Y has 10 fields that are Zs (and Z is just a wrapper struct), then we recursively call this function 100 times, where as we only have to explore path X -any-field-> Y -any-field-> Z to show there is no recursive struct?

solved in latest commit

vineethk · 2024-03-07T00:47:14Z

@fEst1ck Also, note that "Aptos Move Test for Compiler v2" is failing (but it is not a required test), because it is taking too much time - it should finish with much less time. Please investigate before merging in (the performance issue I pointed out may be related, may be not).

vineethk

I have minor comments - please address them before merging.

LGTM otherwise - I thought this rewrite was much easier to reason about, and is certainly more performant than the previous version. Nice work!

vineethk · 2024-03-15T15:25:38Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs

+// Copyright © Aptos Foundation
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
+
+//! Implements an AST pass that checks any struct `S` cannot contain descendant of type `S`.


Mention if there are any prerequisites (other AST passes that must be run before it, cross module cyclic struct references have already been flagged as errors, etc.) or any side-effects, including if there are none. This would allow us to re-order passes if need be.

Suggested change

//! Implements an AST pass that checks any struct `S` cannot contain descendant of type `S`.

//! Implements an AST pass that checks any struct `m::S` cannot contain descendant of type `m::S`.

(either this, or mention that this check is only done within each module)

vineethk · 2024-03-15T15:42:30Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs

+        checked: &mut BTreeSet<StructId>,
+    ) {
+        // check for cyclic dependencies
+        for (i, (_ancestor_loc, _ancecsotr_name, ancestor)) in path.iter().enumerate() {


Suggested change

for (i, (_ancestor_loc, _ancecsotr_name, ancestor)) in path.iter().enumerate() {

for (i, (_ancestor_loc, _ancestor_name, ancestor)) in path.iter().enumerate() {

vineethk · 2024-03-15T15:46:57Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs

+                    }
+                },
+                Type::Primitive(_) | Type::TypeParameter(_) => {},
+                _ => panic!("invalid field type"),


Suggested change

_ => panic!("invalid field type"),

_ => unreachable!("invalid field type"),

vineethk · 2024-03-15T15:49:46Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs

+            path.push((loc.clone(), field_name, struct_id));
+            match field_env.get_type() {
+                Type::Struct(field_mod_id, field_struct_id, insts) => {
+                    // make sure the field struct has been checked


Suggested change

// make sure the field struct has been checked

// make sure the field struct has not been checked already

vineethk · 2024-03-15T15:50:38Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs

+                    }
+                    // check the type parameters of the fields cannot contain the struct we are checking
+                    if insts.iter().any(|ty| {
+                        self.ty_contains_struct(path, &ty, loc.clone(), struct_id, checked)


Suggested change

self.ty_contains_struct(path, &ty, loc.clone(), struct_id, checked)

self.ty_contains_struct(path, ty, loc.clone(), struct_id, checked)

vineethk · 2024-03-15T16:05:03Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/src/recursive_struct_checker.rs

+    fn report_invalid_field(&self, struct_env: &StructEnv, field_env: &FieldEnv) {
+        let struct_name = self.get_struct_name(struct_env.get_id());
+        let note = format!(
+            "invalid field {} of {} containing {} itself",


Suggested change

"invalid field {} of {} containing {} itself",

"invalid field `{}` of `{}` containing `{}` itself",

vineethk · 2024-03-15T16:20:46Z

third_party/move/move-compiler-v2/tests/checking/typing/recursive_structs.move

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+address 0x42 {


nit: having test file names like recursive_structs and recursive_struct (where both contains multiple recursive structs) can make them difficult to maintain or refer to. More descriptive names would be ideal, but even numbering them recursive_structs_[1,2] would be better than existing.

vineethk · 2024-03-15T16:25:05Z

From the PR description:

TODO: add that we can't have recursive structs in the move book.

We already say this in the move book, see: https://aptos.dev/move/book/structs-and-resources/#defining-structs. Did you mean something else?

fEst1ck · 2024-03-16T01:47:30Z

From the PR description:

TODO: add that we can't have recursive structs in the move book.

We already say this in the move book, see: https://aptos.dev/move/book/structs-and-resources/#defining-structs. Did you mean something else?

Also found this https://aptos.dev/move/book/generics/#recursive-structs

github-actions · 2024-03-16T03:14:43Z

✅ Forge suite `realistic_env_max_load` success on `f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0`

two traffics test: inner traffic : committed: 7703 txn/s, latency: 5092 ms, (p50: 5000 ms, p90: 6000 ms, p99: 10400 ms), latency samples: 3328020
two traffics test : committed: 100 txn/s, latency: 1928 ms, (p50: 1900 ms, p90: 2200 ms, p99: 6600 ms), latency samples: 1820
Latency breakdown for phase 0: ["QsBatchToPos: max: 0.232, avg: 0.204", "QsPosToProposal: max: 0.282, avg: 0.265", "ConsensusProposalToOrdered: max: 0.493, avg: 0.448", "ConsensusOrderedToCommit: max: 0.335, avg: 0.318", "ConsensusProposalToCommit: max: 0.780, avg: 0.766"]
Max round gap was 1 [limit 4] at version 1630281. Max no progress secs was 4.637211 [limit 15] at version 1630281.
Test Ok

github-actions · 2024-03-16T04:02:14Z

✅ Forge suite `compat` success on `aptos-node-v1.9.5` ==> `f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0`

Compatibility test results for aptos-node-v1.9.5 ==> f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0 (PR)
1. Check liveness of validators at old version: aptos-node-v1.9.5
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::liveness-check : committed: 6768 txn/s, latency: 4901 ms, (p50: 4800 ms, p90: 8400 ms, p99: 9300 ms), latency samples: 236900
2. Upgrading first Validator to new version: f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::single-validator-upgrade : committed: 1815 txn/s, latency: 16469 ms, (p50: 18300 ms, p90: 22500 ms, p99: 23200 ms), latency samples: 94380
3. Upgrading rest of first batch to new version: f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::half-validator-upgrade : committed: 246 txn/s, submitted: 441 txn/s, expired: 194 txn/s, latency: 42737 ms, (p50: 41400 ms, p90: 56400 ms, p99: 71800 ms), latency samples: 22461
4. upgrading second batch to new version: f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0
compatibility::simple-validator-upgrade::rest-validator-upgrade : committed: 2538 txn/s, latency: 12021 ms, (p50: 13100 ms, p90: 14400 ms, p99: 15600 ms), latency samples: 109140
5. check swarm health
Compatibility test for aptos-node-v1.9.5 ==> f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0 passed
Test Ok

fEst1ck force-pushed the check-recursive-struct1 branch from 6082975 to ed9e378 Compare February 27, 2024 10:06

fEst1ck requested review from vineethk, wrwg, rahxephon89 and brmataptos February 27, 2024 20:05

wrwg reviewed Feb 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

brmataptos reviewed Mar 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

fEst1ck force-pushed the check-recursive-struct1 branch 2 times, most recently from edcffce to b474938 Compare March 6, 2024 10:24

fEst1ck requested review from brmataptos and wrwg March 6, 2024 10:42

fEst1ck commented Mar 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

wrwg approved these changes Mar 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

vineethk reviewed Mar 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

fEst1ck force-pushed the check-recursive-struct1 branch 2 times, most recently from ff19aac to 7c486de Compare March 15, 2024 06:40

fEst1ck requested a review from vineethk March 15, 2024 07:56

vineethk approved these changes Mar 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

Zekun Wang added 6 commits March 15, 2024 21:59

check recursive structs

a06500e

add tests

f80f972

bug fix

55847b8

add tests

ab6e407

linter err

d94a272

update tests

ace8f34

Zekun Wang added 15 commits March 15, 2024 21:59

update tests

0faca51

bug fix

e13351b

update tests

3b2886b

merge conflicts

ffd0e24

merge conflicts

db762fa

format

47de386

upate tests

20868e7

doc

c1c337d

doc

7d1c1db

typo

735147b

refactor

89560bc

comment

0909c66

refactor

c586298

rename tests

d99d506

format

3932ffb

fEst1ck force-pushed the check-recursive-struct1 branch from 1a6837b to 3932ffb Compare March 16, 2024 01:59

fEst1ck enabled auto-merge (squash) March 16, 2024 01:59

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

update tests

f25596c

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

fEst1ck merged commit b69a7a3 into aptos-labs:main Mar 16, 2024
46 checks passed

fEst1ck added the compiler-v2 label May 9, 2024

	pub fn check_resursive_struct(&self, struct_entry: &StructEntry) {
	pub fn check_recursive_struct(&self, struct_entry: &StructEntry) {

	// short-curcuit upon first recursive occurence found
	// short-circuit upon first recursive occurrence found

	panic!("field access path contains non-struct")
	unreachable!("field access path contains non-struct")

	"recursive definition {}",
	"recursive definition of struct `{}`",

	//! Implements an AST pass that checks any struct `S` cannot contain descendant of type `S`.
	//! Implements an AST pass that checks any struct `m::S` cannot contain descendant of type `m::S`.

	for (i, (_ancestor_loc, _ancecsotr_name, ancestor)) in path.iter().enumerate() {
	for (i, (_ancestor_loc, _ancestor_name, ancestor)) in path.iter().enumerate() {

	_ => panic!("invalid field type"),
	_ => unreachable!("invalid field type"),

	// make sure the field struct has been checked
	// make sure the field struct has not been checked already

	self.ty_contains_struct(path, &ty, loc.clone(), struct_id, checked)
	self.ty_contains_struct(path, ty, loc.clone(), struct_id, checked)

	"invalid field {} of {} containing {} itself",
	"invalid field `{}` of `{}` containing `{}` itself",

[Compiler V2] Check recursive struct definitions #12257

[Compiler V2] Check recursive struct definitions #12257

Conversation

fEst1ck commented Feb 27, 2024 • edited Loading

Description

Test Plan

trunk-io bot commented Feb 27, 2024 • edited Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 27, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

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

fEst1ck Mar 6, 2024 • edited Loading

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

fEst1ck commented Mar 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fEst1ck Mar 15, 2024 • edited Loading

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

vineethk commented Mar 7, 2024 • edited Loading

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vineethk commented Mar 15, 2024

fEst1ck commented Mar 16, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

fEst1ck commented Feb 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

trunk-io bot commented Feb 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 27, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fEst1ck Mar 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

fEst1ck Mar 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

vineethk commented Mar 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

✅ Forge suite `realistic_env_max_load` success on `f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0`

✅ Forge suite `compat` success on `aptos-node-v1.9.5` ==> `f25596c17edf9aa458ad65eea5eb07cad83b92e0`