Open JayWhite2357 opened 1 week ago
@stuarttimwhite @tlovell-sxt Is 53 the correct version for arrow
?
/bounty $100
/attempt #237
with your implementation plan. Note: we will only assign an issue if you include an implementation plan with a time estimate. Additionally, to be assigned an issue, you must have previously contributed to the project. You can still work on an issue and submit a PR without being assigned./claim #237
in the PR body to claim the bountyThank you for contributing to spaceandtimelabs/sxt-proof-of-sql!
Add a bounty • Share on socials
Attempt | Started (GMT+0) | Solution |
---|---|---|
🟢 @melsonic | Oct 12, 2024, 1:13:39 PM | #267 |
🟢 @varshith257 | Oct 12, 2024, 1:52:33 PM | #266 |
@stuarttimwhite @tlovell-sxt Is 53 the correct version for
arrow
?
Yes.
/attempt #237
Algora profile | Completed bounties | Tech | Active attempts | Options |
---|---|---|---|---|
@melsonic | 5 bounties from 4 projects | TypeScript, JavaScript, Rust & more |
Cancel attempt |
@JayWhite2357 Hey, I have gone through the codebase and have some doubts.
I see some functions inside struct implementation
have functions using the arrow feature
. If we try to isolate only those functions under the custom arrow module
, it will create cyclic dependencies. So, is moving the whole implementation to the custom arrow module
ok?
@melsonic I forgot to mark my attempt, I have already worked on it(left with a few fixes) and successfully isolated it to the custom arrow module. Commented for we don't make duplicate efforts for it :)
@JayWhite2357 I will submit multiple PRs to make the review process smooth. With this /attempt #237
Algora profile | Completed bounties | Tech | Active attempts | Options |
---|---|---|---|---|
@varshith257 | 15 bounties from 7 projects | Go, Scala, TypeScript & more |
﹟232 |
Cancel attempt |
💡 @melsonic submitted a pull request that claims the bounty. You can visit your bounty board to reward.
Hey @varshith257, I've also spent some time going through the codebase, and So, I have submitted a PR with my changes. The code is working fine, I have tested it, and only the documentation part is left, which I will do in the next commit. Since you have also worked on the issue, I am open to collaborating before the final changes if you are ok with it, else let Jay decide.
@melsonic Cool! Let's collaborate. Yes, we have both spent time on it. I think we have two different solutions, so let's see what @JayWhite2357 agree with and let's collaborate on it
💡 @varshith257 submitted a pull request that claims the bounty. You can visit your bounty board to reward.
@melsonic Cool! Let's collaborate. Yes, we have both spent time on it. I think we have two different solutions, so let's see what @JayWhite2357 agree with and let's collaborate on it
Sure bro! Let's colab.
And talking about the solution, it is not that different, the difference is in the structure. I also started with the module arrow
inside base
, but after seeing some modules under sql/proof
, I moved it outside base
.
And yeah, let's wait for @JayWhite2357 and then proceed with our changes.
Background and Motivation
Currently,
arrow
is one of the elements that must be disabled to enableno_std
support. Additionally, not every use-case requires arrow. So, we have gated it behind a features flag (feature = "arrow"
). However, there are many instances of#[cfg(feature = "arrow")]
throughout the codebase, which leave the code cluttered.Changes Required
proof_of_sql::base::arrow
module and moving all code there. However, this may not be possible, so this is not a hard requirement.arrow
crate to version 53.