blockifier: split execution summary to tx & builtins

[avivg-starkware]

No description provided.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload workflows:

• Started at 2025-07-03T06:36:17Z
• Started at 2025-07-03T06:43:11Z
• Started at 2025-07-03T06:54:17Z
• Started at 2025-07-03T07:23:36Z
• Started at 2025-07-03T08:03:10Z
• Started at 2025-07-03T08:37:28Z

[avivg-starkware]

• blockifier: remove fee builtins duplicacy in get_tx_weights #7521
• blockifier: split execution summary to tx & builtins #7738 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main-v0.14.0

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

[Yoni-Starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware and @noaov1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/bouncer.rs line 505 at r2 (raw file):

        state_reader: &S,
        tx_state_changes_keys: &StateChangesKeys,
        summary: &SummaryWithBuiltins,

Why do we need this type?

Code quote:

SummaryWithBuiltins,

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/call_info.rs line 317 at r2 (raw file):

            acc
        })
    }

You can remove this func and move the impl to summarize_builtins.

[avivg-starkware]

Reviewable status: 0 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware, @noaov1, and @Yoni-Starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/bouncer.rs line 505 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, Yoni-Starkware (Yoni) wrote…

Why do we need this type?

Better this way?

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/call_info.rs line 317 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, Yoni-Starkware (Yoni) wrote…

You can remove this func and move the impl to summarize_builtins.

Done.

[Yoni-Starkware]

Reviewed 2 of 5 files at r1, 2 of 3 files at r3, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @avivg-starkware, @meship-starkware, and @noaov1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/bouncer.rs line 505 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, avivg-starkware wrote…

Better this way?

I mean, why a single arg and not two? summary
is less clear than tx_execution_summary, tx_builtin_counters

[Yoni-Starkware]

Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @avivg-starkware, @meship-starkware, and @noaov1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/objects_test.rs line 248 at r3 (raw file):

        },
    };
    // TODO(Meshi): Change it to a relevant value for this test.

Better to complete this test, to make sure we didn't break anything.

Code quote:

 // TODO(Meshi): Change it to a relevant value for this test

[noaov1]

Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @avivg-starkware and @meship-starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/objects_test.rs line 248 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, Yoni-Starkware (Yoni) wrote…

Better to complete this test, to make sure we didn't break anything.

Already done (waiting for @meship-starkware 's merge)

[avivg-starkware]

Reviewable status: 1 of 8 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @meship-starkware and @Yoni-Starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/bouncer.rs line 505 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, Yoni-Starkware (Yoni) wrote…

I mean, why a single arg and not two? summary
is less clear than tx_execution_summary, tx_builtin_counters

I see. I thought fewer args would be better (since both are essentially summaries).
But I’m not attached to the idea—happy to separate them (see changes)

[Yoni-Starkware]

Reviewed 7 of 7 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @meship-starkware)

---

crates/blockifier/src/transaction/objects_test.rs line 248 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, noaov1 (Noa Oved) wrote…

Already done (waiting for @meship-starkware 's merge)

Thanks!