Skip to content

Drop create_inbound_payment*_legacy breaking downgrade to 0.0.103 #2351

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

Merged

Conversation

TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

0.0.103 is now downright ancient, and certainly shouldn't exist in production anywhere today. Thus, it seems fine to remove the ability to create legacy stateful inbound payment entries.

Users downgrading to 0.0.103 will thus not be able to claim any payments created on modern LDK, though we still retain the ability to claim such payments at least for one more release.

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, really liking the diff stats on this one.

Seems functional_tests::test_secret_timeout should also be removed to make CI happy.

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Jun 12, 2023

There is also the deprecated _user_payment_id field in Event::PaymentClaimable that we may be able to drop while we're at it?

 (6, 0u64, required), // user_payment_id required for compatibility with 0.0.103 and earlier

0.0.103 is now downright ancient, and certainly shouldn't exist in
production anywhere today. Thus, it seems fine to remove the
ability to create legacy stateful inbound payment entries.

Users downgrading to 0.0.103 will thus not be able to claim any
payments created on modern LDK, though we still retain the ability
to claim such payments at least for one more release.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2023-04-remove-legacy-recv branch from 70c0802 to 34772ca Compare June 12, 2023 16:51
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

There is also the deprecated _user_payment_id field in Event::PaymentClaimable that we may be able to drop while we're at it?

Sure!

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Jun 12, 2023

Sure!

Nice! Could modify the note on the read side to include when we stopped writing the field, so that we can stop reading it someday, too.

https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/rust-lightning/blob/34772cad6f0fd13f2a0b2989c6f68e00f9c468f7/lightning/src/events/mod.rs#L1062

Since we're breaking downgrade compatibility to LDK version 0.0.103
and before, we might as well go ahead and remove other code we have
for compatibility.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2023-04-remove-legacy-recv branch from 34772ca to 942d776 Compare June 12, 2023 18:46
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Done.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.04 ⚠️

Comparison is base (42e2f1d) 90.48% compared to head (942d776) 90.45%.

❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2351      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.48%   90.45%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         104      104              
  Lines       53920    53858      -62     
  Branches    53920    53858      -62     
==========================================
- Hits        48790    48717      -73     
- Misses       5130     5141      +11     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lightning/src/events/mod.rs 41.40% <ø> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 86.38% <ø> (-0.37%) ⬇️
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs 98.23% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt merged commit c3c1050 into lightningdevkit:main Jun 17, 2023
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