-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 164
Add LSPS5 webhook notification support #993
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
Open
Camillarhi
wants to merge
1
commit into
lightningdevkit:main
Choose a base branch
from
Camillarhi:lsps5
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
I noticed this method now takes two Option configs plus a trailing bool, and every call site (7 in the integration tests) has had to add arguments as it grew. I also see the builder has separate methods per chain source (set_chain_source_esplora, set_chain_source_electrum, etc.) rather than one method with growing options.
Would splitting into enable_lsps2_service(cfg: LSPS2ServiceConfig, advertise: bool) and enable_lsps5_service(cfg: LSPS5ServiceConfig, advertise: bool) (or a shared set_advertise_service(bool) alongside two single-purpose enable calls) fit better? Non-breaking for a future third protocol, and each call site says exactly one thing again.
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.
The single method was a decision made during the liquidity refactor #792 (comment), so the one method with an options shape is deliberate, and
LSPS1service slots in as a thirdOptionrather than a third method.On the bool,
advertiseisn't per protocol. The LSPS feature bit is set at the liquidity level rather than per service: when a service is configured andadvertise_serviceis true. That's why it moved out ofLSPS2ServiceConfighere in the first place.enable_lsps2_service(cfg, advertise)plusenable_lsps5_service(cfg, advertise)would put two bools behind one bit, and we'd be back to the duplication.The docs should say the advertise part more plainly though, so I'll expand that paragraph to name the shared feature.
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.
Ah, that makes sense misseed that advertise_service is a single shared bit rather than per-protocol state. Thanks for pointing to #792 for context too. The docs clarification sounds good.