Skip to content

Conversation

@wyn
Copy link
Collaborator

@wyn wyn commented Mar 17, 2025

Changes to make lltz compatible with smartpy env.

Not urgent but thought I'd open the MR anyway

@wyn wyn marked this pull request as draft March 17, 2025 13:15
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from da9b972 to d5beb31 Compare March 21, 2025 15:16
@alanmarkoTrilitech
Copy link
Contributor

After briefly going through it, this PR looks good to me. However as main is currently the branch that LIGO uses as the stable one, I would suggest that we don't merge this to main but instead into some dev branch from which we less frequently merge into main(and when doing so testing LIGO tests/SmartPY tests and also LLTZ tests - ideally we should make some nice CI for this too). Better naming would be relase/dev branches, but I would suggest making this change later in order to not block Eduardo with the release of LLTZ in LIGO (only critical bugfixes should be merged to main now).

@alanmarkoTrilitech
Copy link
Contributor

Please also add manual testing section to the PR - testing on the SmartPy side and LLTZ side

@wyn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wyn commented Mar 21, 2025

only critical bugfixes should be merged to main now

but what counts as critical - from smartpy point of view renaming these modules in LLTZ is critical as the alternative - renaming in smartpy - would involve changing most of the core compiler modules

@alanmarkoTrilitech
Copy link
Contributor

alanmarkoTrilitech commented Mar 21, 2025

but what counts as critical - from smartpy point of view renaming these modules in LLTZ is critical as the alternative - renaming in smartpy - would involve changing most of the core compiler modules

yes, I'm not saying that you can't use it or that it shouldn't be merged. But right now LIGO is ready to have LLTZ released in next few days via an optional --lltz-ir flag and it uses main as the stable branch of LLTZ. In the case of SmartPy, I assume that those changes aren't going to be released as soon, so I think it could use dev branch for now. Likely, you will need to make several more changes relevant for SmartPy, so I would prefer merging them to main later and updating it for next release in LIGO.

by manual testing I mean running dune test --root=. in LLTZ to test that LLTZ tests pass and whatever command you use for testing in smartpy. Its fine if you don't inlcude testing from LIGO if you merge it into a dev branch, but once dev is being merged to LIGO, it would also need to be tested from LIGO side.

@wyn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

wyn commented Mar 21, 2025

yes, I'm not saying that you can't use it or that it shouldn't be merged. But right now LIGO is ready to have LLTZ released in next few days via an optional --lltz-ir flag and it uses main as the stable branch of LLTZ. In the case of SmartPy, I assume that those changes aren't going to be released as soon, so I think it could use dev branch for now. Likely, you will need to make several more changes relevant for SmartPy, so I would prefer merging them to main later and updating it for next release in LIGO.

brilliant, thanks. That sounds fine

@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from cd46737 to 2014072 Compare March 21, 2025 17:43
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch 5 times, most recently from ebfc5c4 to 486715b Compare May 29, 2025 11:26
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from 486715b to bed4222 Compare June 10, 2025 08:54
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from a3e8d02 to f495ffd Compare June 26, 2025 13:53
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from 4bcbdf9 to 3a64ddf Compare October 10, 2025 09:08
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from 3a64ddf to 0036043 Compare November 24, 2025 14:36
@wyn wyn force-pushed the swp@lltz_codegen/smartpy_compatible branch from 0036043 to 1f4cc5e Compare December 4, 2025 15:08
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.

3 participants