[refactor] Extracted near-vm-runner from near-primitives #11578
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
akorchyn
force-pushed
the
extracted-near-vm-runner-from-near-primitives
branch
from
95b64e5
to
585db43
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #11578 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 71.44% 71.49% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 786 787 +1
Lines 160355 160698 +343
Branches 160355 160698 +343
==========================================
+ Hits 114573 114898 +325
Misses 40793 40793
- Partials 4989 5007 +18
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
nagisa
reviewed
Jun 14, 2024
akorchyn
force-pushed
the
extracted-near-vm-runner-from-near-primitives
branch
2 times, most recently
from
89c8009
to
7a17ee6
Compare
akorchyn
force-pushed
the
extracted-near-vm-runner-from-near-primitives
branch
from
7a17ee6
to
6a23b9b
Compare
nagisa
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks quite a bit more reasonable! The copies of profile_data_v3 can be simplified and made smaller in a follow-up(s) by anybody who cares.
I did a brief look-around for ecosystem uses of ViewApplyState and it does appear that near-sdk-rs/near-sdk-sim is using this structure (alongside the whole contract cache thing...) and is the only public user that I was able to find.
This crate however also pulls in the whole transaction runtime, so it shouldn't be a big deal for it to reference that struct from there. Will there be other users of this struct? I don't know! And I don't think we'll find out without breaking those users ^^
(The approval is conditional on the fixes to GHA workflows)
nagisa
approved these changes
Jun 17, 2024
posvyatokum
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2024
This pull request tries to de-couple the near-vm-runner from the dependency list of near-primitives Near-vm-runner is not a proper dependency for something primitive, but now it's a part of many near dependencies. Also, near-vm-runner uses rustix::fs, a blocker for any release on Windows. * [here](near/near-cli-rs#350) you can see that Windows built is broken. * [here](https://github.com/near/nearcore/compare/1.39.2...akorchyn:nearcore:patch-defaults?expand=1) you can see an example patch so build pass Well, I have proceeded next way: * Moved ViewApplyState to node-runtime * Copied ProfileV3 to near-primitives and created conversion in node-runtime * [x] Windows CI for public libraries :) * [x] Fix tests compilation * Please take a look at a patch that I have created [here](https://github.com/near/nearcore/compare/1.39.2...akorchyn:nearcore:patch-defaults?expand=1). Do you think we could rollout 0.22.2 release, so I could continue rolling out 0.22, but go with this more proper implementation for future 0.23/0.24 release?
VanBarbascu
added
the
pick-2.0.0
marcelo-gonzalez
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 13, 2024
### Description This pull request tries to de-couple the near-vm-runner from the dependency list of near-primitives ### Motivation Near-vm-runner is not a proper dependency for something primitive, but now it's a part of many near dependencies. Also, near-vm-runner uses rustix::fs, a blocker for any release on Windows. * [here](near/near-cli-rs#350) you can see that Windows built is broken. * [here](https://github.com/near/nearcore/compare/1.39.2...akorchyn:nearcore:patch-defaults?expand=1) you can see an example patch so build pass ### How is it done? Well, I have proceeded next way: * Moved ViewApplyState to node-runtime * Copied ProfileV3 to near-primitives and created conversion in node-runtime #### TODO: * [x] Windows CI for public libraries :) * [x] Fix tests compilation ## For reviewers * Please take a look at a patch that I have created [here](https://github.com/near/nearcore/compare/1.39.2...akorchyn:nearcore:patch-defaults?expand=1). Do you think we could rollout 0.22.2 release, so I could continue rolling out 0.22, but go with this more proper implementation for future 0.23/0.24 release?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This pull request tries to de-couple the near-vm-runner from the dependency list of near-primitives
Motivation
Near-vm-runner is not a proper dependency for something primitive, but now it's a part of many near dependencies.
Also, near-vm-runner uses rustix::fs, a blocker for any release on Windows.
How is it done?
Well, I have proceeded next way:
TODO:
For reviewers