rpcserver: remove duplicate info from RoutingPolicy
#9572
Conversation
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
yyforyongyu
added
rpc
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are limited to specific labels. 🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Make sure the `CustomRecords` field is asserted.
We remove the inbound fee record from `RoutingPolicy.CustomRecords` as we already have fields `InboundFeeBaseMsat` and `InboundFeeRateMilliMsat`.
yyforyongyu
force-pushed
the
fix-custom-msg
branch
from
5098512 to
f1b7e94
Compare
ellemouton
reviewed
Mar 3, 2025
| records := marshalExtraOpaqueData(data) | ||
|
|
||
| // Remove the inbound fee record as we have dedicated fields for it. | ||
| delete(records, uint64(lnwire.FeeRecordType)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we then maybe add to the CustomRecords proto field that it only includes records that we were not able to extract?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make sense! Will add!
|
Turning this into a draft as it's targeted to 0.20 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Found from this build, where the inbound fee info was set in the
custom_recordsof a channel policy response,{ "time_lock_delta": 22, "min_htlc": 1000, "fee_base_msat": 800, "fee_rate_milli_msat": 123000000, "max_htlc_msat": 1000000, "custom_records": { "55555": "///+cP///8Q=" }, "inbound_fee_base_msat": -400, "inbound_fee_rate_milli_msat": -60, "connecting_node": "021f81f97732d32fd0eb39cca08bb05d2377486d1bd5cbbdcad176915364c17e2a", "timestamp": "2025-02-28T08:10:22.626242157Z" }We remove the inbound fee record from
RoutingPolicy.CustomRecordsas we already have fieldsInboundFeeBaseMsatandInboundFeeRateMilliMsat.