Skip to content

Conversation

@johnathan79717
Copy link
Contributor

@johnathan79717 johnathan79717 commented Jan 15, 2026

Fixes AztecProtocol/barretenberg#1606

Summary

  • Fixes help text formatting in bb CLI to preserve explicit newlines
  • Formats --verifier_target options as an aligned table for better readability

Before:

-t,--verifier_target [BB_VERIFIER_TARGET]
                     Target verification environment. Determines hash function
                     and ZK settings. evm: Ethereum/Solidity verification
                     (keccak, ZK) evm-no-zk: Ethereum/Solidity without
                     zero-knowledge noir-recursive: Recursive verification in
                     Noir circuits (poseidon2, ZK) ...

After:

-t,--verifier_target [BB_VERIFIER_TARGET]
                     Target verification environment. Determines hash function
                     and ZK settings.

                     Options:
                       evm                  Ethereum/Solidity (keccak, ZK)
                       evm-no-zk            Ethereum/Solidity without ZK
                       noir-recursive       Noir circuits (poseidon2, ZK)
                       noir-recursive-no-zk Noir circuits without ZK
                       noir-rollup          Rollup with IPA (poseidon2, ZK)
                       noir-rollup-no-zk    Rollup without ZK
                       starknet             Starknet via Garaga (ZK)
                       starknet-no-zk       Starknet without ZK

Test plan

  • Built bb and verified bb prove --help shows formatted options

The wrap_text function was using istringstream which splits on all
whitespace, collapsing explicit newlines in help descriptions. This made
multi-line option descriptions like --verifier_target hard to read.

Now splits by newlines first to preserve explicit line breaks, then
word-wraps within each line.
@johnathan79717
Copy link
Contributor Author

Didn't realize there was a suggested format in AztecProtocol/barretenberg#1606. Updating.

@johnathan79717 johnathan79717 marked this pull request as draft January 16, 2026 13:42
@johnathan79717 johnathan79717 removed the request for review from ludamad January 16, 2026 13:42
@johnathan79717 johnathan79717 marked this pull request as ready for review January 16, 2026 13:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants