Add secure powers generation for simd #930

Gali-StarkWare · 2024-12-10T11:17:10Z

No description provided.

reviewable-StarkWare · 2024-12-10T11:17:18Z

This change is

Gali-StarkWare · 2024-12-10T11:17:25Z

Add secure powers generation for simd #930 👈 (View in Graphite)
dev

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

codecov-commenter · 2024-12-10T11:18:30Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.30%. Comparing base (060f0e4) to head (0a2e9b9).
Report is 1 commits behind head on dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #930      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.47%   91.30%   -0.18%     
==========================================
  Files          94       99       +5     
  Lines       13731    14426     +695     
  Branches    13731    14426     +695     
==========================================
+ Hits        12561    13171     +610     
- Misses       1055     1136      +81     
- Partials      115      119       +4

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

ohad-starkware

Perhaps I didn't explain properly
the function should take alpha, n_powers and return Vec, that is the n_powers powers of alpha (exclusive) : 0, a, a^2....a^(n-1)
use larger vectors to perform multiple operations at a time

Reviewed all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @shaharsamocha7)

github-actions

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 2.

Benchmark suite	Current: `0a2e9b9`	Previous: `cd8b37b`	Ratio
`iffts/simd ifft/22`	`13635674` ns/iter (`± 219842`)	`6306399` ns/iter (`± 210024`)	`2.16`
`iffts/simd ifft/25`	`133703364` ns/iter (`± 845083`)	`65891527` ns/iter (`± 1735211`)	`2.03`
`iffts/simd ifft/26`	`278573898` ns/iter (`± 3255932`)	`136655216` ns/iter (`± 2242165`)	`2.04`
`iffts/simd ifft/27`	`646251801` ns/iter (`± 15536196`)	`312588285` ns/iter (`± 9816879`)	`2.07`
`iffts/simd ifft/28`	`1351168377` ns/iter (`± 36149701`)	`643771030` ns/iter (`± 19147376`)	`2.10`
`simd rfft 20bit`	`3234196` ns/iter (`± 21252`)	`1617070` ns/iter (`± 66435`)	`2.00`
`merkle throughput/simd merkle`	`30000903` ns/iter (`± 498754`)	`13712527` ns/iter (`± 579195`)	`2.19`

This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.

CC: @shaharsamocha7

ohad-starkware

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 14 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 62 at r2 (raw file):

// TODO(Gali): Remove #[allow(dead_code)].
#[allow(dead_code)]
pub fn generate_secure_powers_for_simd(felt: SecureField, n_powers: usize) -> Vec<SecureField> {

Suggestion:

pub fn generate_secure_powers_simd(felt: SecureField, n_powers: usize) -> Vec<SecureField> {

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 63 at r2 (raw file):

#[allow(dead_code)]
pub fn generate_secure_powers_for_simd(felt: SecureField, n_powers: usize) -> Vec<SecureField> {
    let step_arr: [SecureField; N_LANES] = (0..N_LANES)

that logic is already written in the CPU function, use it?

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 69 at r2 (raw file):

            Some(res)
        })
        .collect::<Vec<SecureField>>()

less noise

Suggestion:

.collect_vec()

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 71 at r2 (raw file):

        .collect::<Vec<SecureField>>()
        .try_into()
        .expect("Failed generating secure powers.");

I think it's alright to .unwrap() here, you won't fail the try_into...
non - blocking

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 77 at r2 (raw file):

    let step_felt = step_arr[N_LANES - 1] * felt;

    let mut packed_powers_vec = Vec::new();

this is a good place to use vec::with_capacity

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 80 at r2 (raw file):

    let mut curr_power: usize = 0;

    while curr_power < n_powers {

consider using scan land collect ike you did above, easier to read

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 81 at r2 (raw file):

    while curr_power < n_powers {
        let base_packed_felt = PackedSecureField::from_array([base_felt; N_LANES]);

I think you can avoid ::from_array inside the loop, this is a load and is somewhat expensive
perhaps define the step as Simd([a^16; 16]), and multiply the current value with it each time (your step is a small register)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 81 at r2 (raw file):

    while curr_power < n_powers {
        let base_packed_felt = PackedSecureField::from_array([base_felt; N_LANES]);

also you can use broadcast to get [value; N_LANE] cheaper

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 87 at r2 (raw file):

    }

    let powers_vec: Vec<SecureField> = packed_powers_vec

Suggestion:

    let secure_powers = packed_powers_vec

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 88 at r2 (raw file):

    let powers_vec: Vec<SecureField> = packed_powers_vec
        .iter()

Suggestion:

.into_iter()

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 90 at r2 (raw file):

        .iter()
        .flat_map(|x| x.to_array().to_vec())
        .collect();

Suggestion:

collect_vec();

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 92 at r2 (raw file):

        .collect();

    powers_vec[0..n_powers].to_vec()

you're doing 2 copies here, I think you can reduce that to 0 (trim the front/back...?)

Code quote:

    let powers_vec: Vec<SecureField> = packed_powers_vec
        .iter()
        .flat_map(|x| x.to_array().to_vec())
        .collect();

    powers_vec[0..n_powers].to_vec()

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 129 at r2 (raw file):

    fn generate_secure_powers_works() {
        let felt = qm31!(1, 2, 3, 4);
        let n_powers = 10;

if you had a bug (you don't) with n > 16 this test would not catch it, use a bigger number.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 134 at r2 (raw file):

        assert_eq!(powers.len(), n_powers);
        assert_eq!(powers[0], SecureField::one());

Suggestion:

        let cpu_powers = generate_secure_powers(felt, n_powers)
        
        let powers = generate_secure_powers_for_simd(felt, n_powers);

        assert_eq!(powers, cpu_powers);

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 140 at r2 (raw file):

    #[test]
    fn generate_empty_secure_powers_works() {

I don't think this edge case is of concern, remove.

ohad-starkware

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 15 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 127 at r2 (raw file):

    #[test]
    fn generate_secure_powers_works() {

rename the tests

Gali-StarkWare

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 15 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 63 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

that logic is already written in the CPU function, use it?

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 69 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

less noise

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 77 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

this is a good place to use vec::with_capacity

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 80 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

consider using scan land collect ike you did above, easier to read

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 81 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

I think you can avoid ::from_array inside the loop, this is a load and is somewhat expensive
perhaps define the step as Simd([a^16; 16]), and multiply the current value with it each time (your step is a small register)

Done. Swapped base-step variables names as well

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 81 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

also you can use broadcast to get [value; N_LANE] cheaper

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 92 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

you're doing 2 copies here, I think you can reduce that to 0 (trim the front/back...?)

Done. Not sure that I got it

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 127 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

rename the tests

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 129 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

if you had a bug (you don't) with n > 16 this test would not catch it, use a bigger number.

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 140 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

I don't think this edge case is of concern, remove.

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 62 at r2 (raw file):

// TODO(Gali): Remove #[allow(dead_code)].
#[allow(dead_code)]
pub fn generate_secure_powers_for_simd(felt: SecureField, n_powers: usize) -> Vec<SecureField> {

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 87 at r2 (raw file):

    }

    let powers_vec: Vec<SecureField> = packed_powers_vec

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 88 at r2 (raw file):

    let powers_vec: Vec<SecureField> = packed_powers_vec
        .iter()

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 90 at r2 (raw file):

        .iter()
        .flat_map(|x| x.to_array().to_vec())
        .collect();

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 134 at r2 (raw file):

        assert_eq!(powers.len(), n_powers);
        assert_eq!(powers[0], SecureField::one());

Done.

ohad-starkware

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 92 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

Done. Not sure that I got it

the collect_vec().into_iter() is redundant, you already have an iterator (scan), that collect is a copy for nothing

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 64 at r3 (raw file):

#[allow(dead_code)]
pub fn generate_secure_powers_simd(felt: SecureField, n_powers: usize) -> Vec<SecureField> {
    let base_arr: [SecureField; N_LANES] =

Suggestion:

 let base_arr =

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 69 at r3 (raw file):

    let step_felt = base_arr[N_LANES - 1] * felt;
    let step_packed_felt = PackedSecureField::broadcast(step_felt);

style
non-blocking

Suggestion:

    let step = base_arr[N_LANES - 1] * felt;
    let step = PackedSecureField::broadcast(step_felt);

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 75 at r3 (raw file):

    } else {
        (n_powers / N_LANES) + 1
    };

Suggestion:

    let packed_size = (n_powers + N_LANES - 1) / N_LANES;

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 85 at r3 (raw file):

        .collect_vec()
        .into_iter()
        .flat_map(|x| x.to_array().to_vec())

x.to_array() is a copy, use transmute?

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 85 at r3 (raw file):

        .collect_vec()
        .into_iter()
        .flat_map(|x| x.to_array().to_vec())

this invoked a heap allocation for every vector :(

Suggestion:

flat_map(|x| x.to_array())

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 119 at r3 (raw file):

    #[test]
    fn generate_secure_powers_simd_returns_the_same_as_cpu() {

Suggestion:

fn test_generate_secure_powers_simd() {

ohad-starkware

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 7 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 121 at r3 (raw file):

    fn generate_secure_powers_simd_returns_the_same_as_cpu() {
        let felt = qm31!(1, 2, 3, 4);
        let n_powers = 30;

bigger?

Gali-StarkWare

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 7 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 92 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

the collect_vec().into_iter() is redundant, you already have an iterator (scan), that collect is a copy for nothing

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

this invoked a heap allocation for every vector :(

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

x.to_array() is a copy, use transmute?

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 121 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

bigger?

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 64 at r3 (raw file):

#[allow(dead_code)]
pub fn generate_secure_powers_simd(felt: SecureField, n_powers: usize) -> Vec<SecureField> {
    let base_arr: [SecureField; N_LANES] =

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 75 at r3 (raw file):

    } else {
        (n_powers / N_LANES) + 1
    };

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 119 at r3 (raw file):

    #[test]
    fn generate_secure_powers_simd_returns_the_same_as_cpu() {

Done.

ohad-starkware

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 6 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

Done.

sorry the transmute is a lie I forgot were in the extension field

shaharsamocha7

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 7 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @ohad-starkware)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 69 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

style
non-blocking

alternatively
let felt_pows = PackedSecureField::from_array(generate_secure_powers(felt, N_LANES).try_into().unwrap());
let felt_pow_n_lanes = PackedSecureField::broadcast(base_arr[N_LANES - 1] * felt);

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 75 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

Done.

there is a function
n_powers.div_ceil(N_LANES)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 119 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

Done.

To be more explicit:
Test name should describe what the test is checking rather than the implementation itself.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 125 at r3 (raw file):

        let cpu_powers = generate_secure_powers(felt, n_powers);
        let powers = generate_secure_powers_simd(felt, n_powers);
        assert_eq!(powers, cpu_powers);

Add a new line here
https://automationpanda.com/2020/07/07/arrange-act-assert-a-pattern-for-writing-good-tests/

Suggestion:

        let powers = generate_secure_powers_simd(felt, n_powers);
        
        assert_eq!(powers, cpu_powers);

Gali-StarkWare

Also changed some variables' names, LMK if it's better

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 7 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ohad-starkware and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 75 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

there is a function
n_powers.div_ceil(N_LANES)

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

sorry the transmute is a lie I forgot were in the extension field

Done.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 119 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

To be more explicit:
Test name should describe what the test is checking rather than the implementation itself.

I thought that specifying that we want the same functionality as the of the other function is good for future changes (if we'll ever change one of them to do something different), but I guess there's no point doing that..

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 125 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Add a new line here
https://automationpanda.com/2020/07/07/arrange-act-assert-a-pattern-for-writing-good-tests/

Done.

shaharsamocha7

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 7 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @ohad-starkware)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 119 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

I thought that specifying that we want the same functionality as the of the other function is good for future changes (if we'll ever change one of them to do something different), but I guess there's no point doing that..

The function purpose is to generate_secure_powers (with simd).
It will still exists if we deleted the cpu implementation.

The way you chose to test it is by checking equivalency to the cpu function.
Problem with adding it to the test name is that implementations tend to change (without changing the test name) while the purpose is more solid.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 121 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, Gali-StarkWare wrote…

Done.

Actually why n_powers is so large?
we don't want this test to take too much time.

If so, maybe there are edge cases where n_powers is small.

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 116 at r5 (raw file):

        let powers = generate_secure_powers_simd(felt, n_powers);

        assert_eq!(powers, cpu_powers);

consider to rename

Suggestion:

        let simd_powers = generate_secure_powers_simd(felt, n_powers);

        assert_eq!(simd_powers, cpu_powers);

ohad-starkware

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @shaharsamocha7)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 121 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shaharsamocha7 wrote…

Actually why n_powers is so large?
we don't want this test to take too much time.

If so, maybe there are edge cases where n_powers is small.

I thougth something like a 100, larger than two SIMD vectors ant not a multiple of 16
there is an edge case for <16 and 0, My thoughts were that you are already using the CPU function in your implementation, so comparing against that can be redundant when the function is simple.
I'm not sure so wait for Shahar's input on this.

shaharsamocha7

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Gali-StarkWare and @ohad-starkware)

crates/prover/src/core/backend/simd/utils.rs line 121 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ohad-starkware (Ohad) wrote…

I thougth something like a 100, larger than two SIMD vectors ant not a multiple of 16
there is an edge case for <16 and 0, My thoughts were that you are already using the CPU function in your implementation, so comparing against that can be redundant when the function is simple.
I'm not sure so wait for Shahar's input on this.

100 is fine IMO.
I would also check <16 but it's nice to have.
non-blocking

Gali-StarkWare requested review from ohad-starkware and shaharsamocha7 December 10, 2024 11:17

Gali-StarkWare marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2024 11:17

Gali-StarkWare self-assigned this Dec 10, 2024

ohad-starkware reviewed Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot reviewed Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Gali-StarkWare force-pushed the 12-10-add_secure_powers_generation_for_simd branch from 3057bea to 06768d9 Compare December 10, 2024 12:39

Gali-StarkWare requested a review from ohad-starkware December 10, 2024 12:42

ohad-starkware requested changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Gali-StarkWare requested a review from ohad-starkware December 10, 2024 14:35

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Gali-StarkWare force-pushed the 12-10-add_secure_powers_generation_for_simd branch from 06768d9 to c35fcd7 Compare December 10, 2024 14:36

ohad-starkware requested changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Gali-StarkWare requested a review from ohad-starkware December 10, 2024 15:04

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

ohad-starkware requested changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Gali-StarkWare force-pushed the 12-10-add_secure_powers_generation_for_simd branch from c35fcd7 to 9bed75c Compare December 10, 2024 15:13

Gali-StarkWare requested a review from ohad-starkware December 10, 2024 15:13

Gali-StarkWare force-pushed the 12-10-add_secure_powers_generation_for_simd branch from 9bed75c to f5e3e66 Compare December 10, 2024 15:14

shaharsamocha7 requested changes Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Add secure powers generation for simd

0a2e9b9

Gali-StarkWare force-pushed the 12-10-add_secure_powers_generation_for_simd branch from f5e3e66 to 0a2e9b9 Compare December 10, 2024 15:52

Gali-StarkWare requested a review from shaharsamocha7 December 10, 2024 15:52

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

shaharsamocha7 reviewed Dec 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

ohad-starkware requested changes Dec 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

shaharsamocha7 reviewed Dec 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add secure powers generation for simd #930

Add secure powers generation for simd #930

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

reviewable-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

ohad-starkware left a comment

github-actions bot left a comment •

edited

Loading

ohad-starkware left a comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Gali-StarkWare left a comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Gali-StarkWare left a comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

shaharsamocha7 left a comment

Gali-StarkWare left a comment

shaharsamocha7 left a comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

shaharsamocha7 left a comment

Add secure powers generation for simd #930

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add secure powers generation for simd #930

Conversation

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

reviewable-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024 • edited Loading

codecov-commenter commented Dec 10, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gali-StarkWare left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gali-StarkWare left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaharsamocha7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gali-StarkWare left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaharsamocha7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ohad-starkware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shaharsamocha7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Gali-StarkWare commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Dec 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot left a comment •

edited

Loading