-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Upgrade to LDK 0.0.117 #151
Upgrade to LDK 0.0.117 #151
Conversation
d61ad2e
to
d72896e
Compare
f1db58d
to
1fc87a1
Compare
40c5bdb
to
c8f06de
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed code apart from sql migrations.
LGTM overall.
6fb34d6
to
4854931
Compare
use std::path::PathBuf; | ||
use std::sync::RwLock; | ||
|
||
pub(crate) fn do_read_write_remove_list_persist<K: KVStore + RefUnwindSafe>(kv_store: &K) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is there another way to test this ?
I am unable to use this, if vssStore owns a runtime, it is not RefUnwindSafe somehow.
also why did we remote propTest?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is there another way to test this ? I am unable to use this, if vssStore owns a runtime, it is not RefUnwindSafe somehow.
Hm, what is the exact error message? A quick fix may be to just impl RefUnwindSafe for VssStore {}
in test
.
also why did we remote propTest?
It didn't add much in this case hence I removed it when upstreaming where we probably won't add the dependency just for this. And I'd now like to keep this codebase and the one of the SqliteStore
upstream as close as possible to avoid introducing any bugs when transitioning back-and-forth.
4854931
to
e5650db
Compare
0901c19
to
e42e9c1
Compare
Updated to 0.0.117-alpha2. |
e42e9c1
to
2522c8c
Compare
Updated to current upstream |
e2d5dd8
to
52f52e6
Compare
Switched to released 0.0.117 crate and squashed commits. |
ca4e0da
to
46c4249
Compare
Now re-added the diff --git a/src/types.rs b/src/types.rs
index d7aae5d..8bcd9e0 100644
--- a/src/types.rs
+++ b/src/types.rs
@@ -162,4 +162,10 @@ pub struct ChannelDetails {
/// which is applied to commitment and HTLC transactions.
pub feerate_sat_per_1000_weight: u32,
+ /// The total balance of the channel. This is the amount that will be returned to
+ /// the user if the channel is closed.
+ ///
+ /// The value is not exact, due to potential in-flight and fee-rate changes. Therefore, exactly
+ /// this amount is likely irrecoverable on close.
+ pub balance_msat: u64,
/// The available outbound capacity for sending HTLCs to the remote peer.
///
@@ -211,4 +217,5 @@ impl From<LdkChannelDetails> for ChannelDetails {
user_channel_id: UserChannelId(value.user_channel_id),
feerate_sat_per_1000_weight: value.feerate_sat_per_1000_weight.unwrap(),
+ balance_msat: value.balance_msat,
outbound_capacity_msat: value.outbound_capacity_msat,
inbound_capacity_msat: value.inbound_capacity_msat, |
46c4249
to
102dc61
Compare
Unfortunately LDK had a regression that broke keysend/spontaneous payments. While this bug and corresponding tests are fixed upstream with 0.0.117, we also introduce test coverage for spontaneous payments here.
102dc61
to
acf76e3
Compare
Dropped the two pin commits since they have landed in #174 and re-added diff --git a/bindings/ldk_node.udl b/bindings/ldk_node.udl
index c5b832d..d924e08 100644
--- a/bindings/ldk_node.udl
+++ b/bindings/ldk_node.udl
@@ -192,4 +192,5 @@ dictionary ChannelDetails {
UserChannelId user_channel_id;
u32 feerate_sat_per_1000_weight;
+ u64 balance_msat;
u64 outbound_capacity_msat;
u64 inbound_capacity_msat; |
Based on #105.This is a draft PR which will be regularly rebased on upstream
HEAD
to incorporate and test the made changes.