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

Quick #3010 followups #3311

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 30, 2024

Conversation

TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

Few minor things I noticed in the second-pass review.

Copy link
Contributor

@vincenzopalazzo vincenzopalazzo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@arik-so
Copy link
Contributor

arik-so commented Sep 24, 2024

LGTM less the typo, though

Copy link
Member

@shaavan shaavan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM mod typo! 🚀

`creates_and_pays_for_offer_with_retry` intends to check that we
re-send a BOLT 12 `invoice_request` in response to a
`message_received` call, but doesn't actually test that there were
no messages in the outbound buffer after the initial send, which we
do here.
While `message_received` purports to be called on every message,
prior to the message, doing so on `Init` messages means we have to
call `message_received` while holding the per-peer mutex, which
can cause some lock contention.

Instead, here, we call `message_received` after processing `Init`
messages (which is probably more useful anyway - the peer isn't
really "connected" until we've processed the `Init` messages),
allowing us to call it unlocked.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2024-09-3010-followups branch from dd9407b to d156b2e Compare September 30, 2024 18:57
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Fixed, sorry.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 30, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.17%. Comparing base (1059f5f) to head (d156b2e).
Report is 100 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3311      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.63%   91.17%   +1.53%     
==========================================
  Files         126      126              
  Lines      102383   114710   +12327     
  Branches   102383   114710   +12327     
==========================================
+ Hits        91776   104588   +12812     
+ Misses       7877     7560     -317     
+ Partials     2730     2562     -168     
Flag Coverage Δ
91.17% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

TheBlueMatt commented Sep 30, 2024

Pretty simple and three people have looked at it so just landing.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt merged commit c7627df into lightningdevkit:main Sep 30, 2024
19 of 20 checks passed
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