Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #7298 New Fuel APIs for Store

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 19 2023 at 21:30):

rockwotj commented on issue #7298:

I'm happy to drop the second commit and not try to fix the full resolution if there is a desire to keep the same semantics there (I'm assuming it's OK if there no async support to still return Ok from the out_of_gas function in Store).

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 19 2023 at 21:44):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #7298:

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen, @peterhuene

<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing", "wasmtime:api", "wasmtime:c-api"

Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:

• fitzgen: fuzzing
• peterhuene: wasmtime:api, wasmtime:c-api

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.

Learn more.
</details>

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 20 2023 at 15:45):

github-actions[bot] commented on issue #7298:

Label Messager: wasmtime:config

It looks like you are changing Wasmtime's configuration options. Make sure to
complete this check list:

• [ ] If you added a new Config method, you wrote extensive documentation for
  it.

  <details>

  Our documentation should be of the following form:

  ```text
  Short, simple summary sentence.

  More details. These details can be multiple paragraphs. There should be
  information about not just the method, but its parameters and results as
  well.

  Is this method fallible? If so, when can it return an error?

  Can this method panic? If so, when does it panic?

  Example

  Optional example here.
  ```

  </details>

• [ ] If you added a new Config method, or modified an existing one, you
  ensured that this configuration is exercised by the fuzz targets.

  <details>

  For example, if you expose a new strategy for allocating the next instance
  slot inside the pooling allocator, you should ensure that at least one of our
  fuzz targets exercises that new strategy.

  Often, all that is required of you is to ensure that there is a knob for this
  configuration option in [wasmtime_fuzzing::Config][fuzzing-config] (or one
  of its nested structs).

  Rarely, this may require authoring a new fuzz target to specifically test this
  configuration. See [our docs on fuzzing][fuzzing-docs] for more details.

  </details>

• [ ] If you are enabling a configuration option by default, make sure that it
  has been fuzzed for at least two weeks before turning it on by default.

[fuzzing-config]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/ca0e8d0a1d8cefc0496dba2f77a670571d8fdcab/crates/fuzzing/src/generators.rs#L182-L194
[fuzzing-docs]: https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-fuzzing.html

---

<details>

To modify this label's message, edit the <code>.github/label-messager/wasmtime-config.md</code> file.

To add new label messages or remove existing label messages, edit the
<code>.github/label-messager.json</code> configuration file.

Learn more.

</details>

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 20 2023 at 22:03):

alexcrichton commented on issue #7298:

I'll take a look once CI is green, so feel free to ping me when that comes up. I'll check in every now and then as well.

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 21 2023 at 01:13):

rockwotj commented on issue #7298:

@alexcrichton test are passing (no rush on a review, I wont be able to make updates until Monday anyways)

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 21 2023 at 01:26):

rockwotj deleted a comment on issue #7298:

I'm happy to drop the second commit and not try to fix the full resolution if there is a desire to keep the same semantics there (I'm assuming it's OK if there no async support to still return Ok from the out_of_gas function in Store).

Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 23 2023 at 18:41):

alexcrichton commented on issue #7298:

oops sorry queued up for merge a bit too soon there

Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 12:05 UTC