-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
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
Add bLIP-52 / LSPS2 service-side support #420
Open
tnull
wants to merge
17
commits into
lightningdevkit:main
Choose a base branch
from
tnull:2024-12-add-lsps2-service-support
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and old review comments may become outdated.
+785
−157
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
17 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
006a269
Prefactor: Rename fields for clarity
tnull 5b276d7
Refactor `derive_xprv` to make it reusable
tnull 15f2fbe
Prefix the lightning-liqudity config types with `Ldk` for clarity
tnull 09343ce
Move `LSPSXClientConfig` to `liquidity`
tnull 2a77b14
Allow configuring LSPS2 service via builders
tnull 7d8e26d
f Prefix the lightning-liqudity `LSPS2ServiceConfig` type with `Ldk` …
tnull 29440f1
f Add more fields to `LSPS2ServiceConfig`
tnull 07f3833
f Clarify overprovisioning docs
tnull cf8c802
Add LDK event handling
tnull 0019584
f Make logging more consistent
tnull 64897a5
f Set `accept_intercept_htlcs` in `Builder` if we're an LSP
tnull 435c661
Move `PaymentForwarded` event emission down
tnull 6f50ad3
Add `LSPS2ServiceEvent` handling
tnull 85ffede
Add LSPS2 client<>service integration test
tnull 4e5b05e
f Move `send` below comment
tnull bad639a
f Assert channel value correctness
tnull 744ad40
f Uniffi tests
tnull 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 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 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.
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 know we have probably used setX in names because it is builder but it is getting slightly confusing with lsps client and service.
Personally, I was slightly confused due to the fact "we need to set liquidity provider to act as lsps-client".
no strong opinion, but imo, these methods could be renamed to
enable_lsps2_service
,enable_lsps2_client
and so on.what do you think?
alternatively, we can add another layer here similar to .bolt11() and .bolt12().
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.
Hmm, thanks for bringing this up. I see you point in that the
set_liquidity_provider
case that could be a bit confusing, but still think I'd like to keep theset_
pattern everywhere for now. For one, it follows the Rust API guidelines for naming setters. Also note that once we break the pattern, we might need to revisit all of the builder methods, which a) would be a larger refactor out-of-scope of this PR and b) would make the API less predicatable, IMO. But noted.