Isolate arrow code

[JayWhite2357]

Background and Motivation

Currently, arrow is one of the elements that must be disabled to enable no_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

• Move all arrow code to a single (or a small number) of modules.
  • My suggestion would be creating a new proof_of_sql::base::arrow module and moving all code there. However, this may not be possible, so this is not a hard requirement.
  • The resulting code must not introduce cyclic dependencies and should resolve any existing ones with arrow related code. This is one of the primary reasons for this cleanup: in order to more easily identify and resolve these.
• Update any legacy documentation referencing arrow to ensure that it is up to date.
• Bump the arrow crate to version 53.

[JayWhite2357]

@stuarttimwhite @tlovell-sxt Is 53 the correct version for arrow?

[JayWhite2357]

/bounty $100

[algora-pbc]

💎 $100 bounty • Space and Time

Steps to solve:

1. Start working: (Optional) Comment /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.
2. Submit work: Create a pull request including /claim #237 in the PR body to claim the bounty
3. Receive payment: 100% of the bounty is received 2-5 days post-reward. Make sure you are eligible for payouts

Thank 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]

@stuarttimwhite @tlovell-sxt Is 53 the correct version for arrow?

Yes.

[melsonic]

/attempt #237

Algora profile	Completed bounties	Tech	Active attempts	Options
@melsonic	5 bounties from 4 projects	TypeScript, JavaScript, Rust & more		Cancel attempt

[melsonic]

@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?

[varshith257]

@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

[algora-pbc]

💡 @melsonic submitted a pull request that claims the bounty. You can visit your bounty board to reward.

[melsonic]

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.

[varshith257]

@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

[algora-pbc]

💡 @varshith257 submitted a pull request that claims the bounty. You can visit your bounty board to reward.

[melsonic]

@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.

[JayWhite2357]

Hey @melsonic and @varshith257. Sorry for the delay on this. I think #266 is more in-line with what I was hoping for:

My suggestion would be creating a new proof_of_sql::base::arrow module and moving all code there. However, this may not be possible, so this is not a hard requirement.

I think it's ok to keep some of the arrow code inside sql/proof since most of it can either be eventually removed, or is test only.

[melsonic]

Hey @melsonic and @varshith257. Sorry for the delay on this. I think #266 is more in-line with what I was hoping for:

My suggestion would be creating a new proof_of_sql::base::arrow module and moving all code there. However, this may not be possible, so this is not a hard requirement.

I think it's ok to keep some of the arrow code inside sql/proof since most of it can either be eventually removed, or is test only.

Okay, no problem @JayWhite2357