chore: upgrade papyrus commit to ca83fd42 and blockifier to 0.8.0-dev.1

[MohammadNassar1]

This change is 

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewable status: 0 of 7 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, and @giladchase)

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 61 at r1 (raw file):

    let account_contract_cairo1 = FeatureContract::AccountWithoutValidations(CairoVersion::Cairo1);
    let test_contract_cairo1 = FeatureContract::TestContract(CairoVersion::Cairo1);
    let erc20_cairo1 = FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo1);

@ArniStarkware/@Yael-Starkware , can you please approve the change I made in this file?

Code quote:

let erc20_cairo1 = FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo1);

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.86%. Comparing base (2c7b230) to head (7711799).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #393   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.86%   83.86%           
=======================================
  Files          35       36    +1     
  Lines        1667     1717   +50     
  Branches     1667     1717   +50     
=======================================
+ Hits         1398     1440   +42     
- Misses        196      204    +8     
  Partials       73       73           

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

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewable status: 0 of 7 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, and @giladchase)

a discussion (no related file):
I have bumped both Papyrus and Blockifier versions.
Blockifier: 0.8.0-dev.1.
Papyrus: ca83fd42.

The main changes in Mempool are related to the Blockifier code.

---

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewed 5 of 7 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 5 of 7 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, @giladchase, and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/gateway/src/stateful_transaction_validator_test.rs line 61 at r1 (raw file):

                    max_amount: VALID_L1_GAS_MAX_AMOUNT,
                    max_price: VALID_L1_GAS_MAX_PRICE_PER_UNIT,
                    balance: num_bigint::BigUint::default(),

This is zero - right?
Please make it explicitly zero.

Code quote:

balance: num_bigint::BigUint::default(),

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 61 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, MohammadNassar1 (mohammad-starkware) wrote…

@ArniStarkware/@Yael-Starkware , can you please approve the change I made in this file?

[elintul]

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @giladchase, and @MohammadNassar1)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, MohammadNassar1 (mohammad-starkware) wrote…

I have bumped both Papyrus and Blockifier versions.
Blockifier: 0.8.0-dev.1.
Papyrus: ca83fd42.

The main changes in Mempool are related to the Blockifier code.

Please change the commit message to also include the Blockifier bump (so it's clear in git tree).

---

---

crates/gateway/Cargo.toml line 21 at r1 (raw file):

cairo-vm.workspace = true
hyper.workspace = true
num-bigint.workspace = true

If only used in tests, please move to [dev-dependencies] section.

Code quote:

num-bigint.workspace = true

---

crates/gateway/src/stateful_transaction_validator_test.rs line 61 at r1 (raw file):

                    max_amount: VALID_L1_GAS_MAX_AMOUNT,
                    max_price: VALID_L1_GAS_MAX_PRICE_PER_UNIT,
                    balance: num_bigint::BigUint::default(),

I think the convention is not to use the fuily-qualified name; please make sure?

Code quote:

num_bigint::BigUint

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 220 at r1 (raw file):

        | FeatureContract::FaultyAccount(version)
        | FeatureContract::TestContract(version) => *version,
        FeatureContract::ERC20 => CairoVersion::Cairo0,

Looks like the ERC20 was Cairo 0 until now? What's the version we have in the repo.?

Code quote:

FeatureContract::ERC20 => CairoVersion::Cairo0

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, @giladchase, and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 220 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

Looks like the ERC20 was Cairo 0 until now? What's the version we have in the repo.?

It was, but:

1. this specific function is correct (fn cairo_version(contract: &FeatureContract)).
2. The logic indeed changed in this PR - it made it so prepare_state_diff used to use FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo0) and now uses: FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo1).

This is fine from the test's perspective.

[ArniStarkware]

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 104 at r1 (raw file):

    fund_accounts: Vec<ContractAddress>,
) -> ThinStateDiff {
    let erc20 = FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo1);

This changes the logic of the test (Used to use the Cairo0 contract).
This is fine by us.

Code quote:

let erc20 = FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo1);

[elintul]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 5 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @giladchase, and @MohammadNassar1)

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 104 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

This changes the logic of the test (Used to use the Cairo0 contract).
This is fine by us.

How would it work?

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 220 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

It was, but:

1. this specific function is correct (fn cairo_version(contract: &FeatureContract)).
2. The logic indeed changed in this PR - it made it so prepare_state_diff used to use FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo0) and now uses: FeatureContract::ERC20(CairoVersion::Cairo1).

This is fine from the test's perspective.

Why do we need it? Doesn't it exist in Blockifier?

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewable status: 4 of 7 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ArniStarkware, @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, and @giladchase)

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

Please change the commit message to also include the Blockifier bump (so it's clear in git tree).

Done

---

---

crates/gateway/src/stateful_transaction_validator_test.rs line 61 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

This is zero - right?
Please make it explicitly zero.

Done.

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 61 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

Thanks!

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 104 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

How would it work?

Changed back to Cairo0.

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 220 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, elintul (Elin) wrote…

Why do we need it? Doesn't it exist in Blockifier?

Changed back to Cairo0.

[ArniStarkware]

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 212 at r2 (raw file):

}

// TODO (Yael 19/6/2024): make this function public in Blockifier and remove it from here.

As discussed - this function can be deleted (This PR allows it).

Code quote:

// TODO (Yael 19/6/2024): make this function public in Blockifier and remove it from here.

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 4 of 7 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, @giladchase, and @MohammadNassar1)

[ArniStarkware]

Reviewable status: 4 of 7 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, and @giladchase)

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 212 at r2 (raw file):

}

// TODO (Yael 19/6/2024): make this function public in Blockifier and remove it from here.

As discussed - this function can be deleted (This PR allows it).

Code quote:

// TODO (Yael 19/6/2024): make this function public in Blockifier and remove it from here.

[elintul]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ayeletstarkware and @giladchase)

[MohammadNassar1]

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @ayeletstarkware, @elintul, and @giladchase)

---

crates/tests-integration/src/state_reader.rs line 212 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ArniStarkware (Arnon Hod) wrote…

As discussed - this function can be deleted (This PR allows it).

Correct.
@Yael-Starkware , can you delete it please?