Skip to content
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

cleanup: do not use output outcome to return decryption shares #6673

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 16, 2025

Conversation

joschisan
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@joschisan joschisan requested review from a team as code owners January 10, 2025 07:03
@joschisan joschisan force-pushed the lnv2_cleanup_outcome branch 4 times, most recently from ded6d29 to a6ca6d1 Compare January 10, 2025 07:42
@joschisan joschisan requested a review from a team as a code owner January 10, 2025 08:15
@@ -583,6 +565,21 @@ impl ServerModule for Lightning {
Ok(module.await_preimage(db, params.0, params.1).await)
}
},
api_endpoint! {
DECRYPTION_KEY_SHARE_ENDPOINT,
ApiVersion::new(0, 0),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These needs to point at the new, minor-increamented API version.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh. Since it's on lnv2, we assume that nothing was released/deployed yet? OK.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that would be the assumption. Just need to check with @elsirion on that...?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As discussed on the dev call today: we could also change the major consensus version or the module kind

@@ -881,12 +881,6 @@ pub trait ServerModule: Debug + Sized {
///
/// Depending on the module this might contain data needed by the client to
/// access funds or give an estimate of when funds will be available.
///
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probably still give the correct guidance on the meaning of None, even if just to document the current state for our own purposes.

Copy link
Contributor

@dpc dpc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, but probably you want at least one review from someone more familiar with LN.

@m1sterc001guy
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM as well, would like the comment @dpc mentioned to be preserved

@dpc
Copy link
Contributor

dpc commented Jan 13, 2025

@joschisan Comments + rebase.

@joschisan joschisan force-pushed the lnv2_cleanup_outcome branch 2 times, most recently from e30994f to 76cd3cb Compare January 15, 2025 08:21
///
/// In other words: after module has processed a given output it **MUST
/// NOT** return `None` for it, as it will lead to the panic.
/// Since this has become deprecated you may return None even if the output
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't understand what "not used inside the module" means.

@joschisan joschisan enabled auto-merge January 16, 2025 15:23
@joschisan joschisan force-pushed the lnv2_cleanup_outcome branch from 76cd3cb to 846d2a5 Compare January 16, 2025 15:25
@joschisan joschisan force-pushed the lnv2_cleanup_outcome branch from 846d2a5 to a772d8c Compare January 16, 2025 15:29
Copy link
Contributor

@m1sterc001guy m1sterc001guy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems good to me. I'd like to prioritize #6465 after merging so when v0.6 is released we don't accidentally break lnv2

@joschisan joschisan added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 16, 2025
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jan 16, 2025
@joschisan joschisan added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 16, 2025
Merged via the queue into fedimint:master with commit 462bd63 Jan 16, 2025
25 checks passed
@joschisan joschisan deleted the lnv2_cleanup_outcome branch January 16, 2025 17:24
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.

4 participants