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

feat: prepare ptlc support #5627

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2024
Merged

feat: prepare ptlc support #5627

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2024

Conversation

joschisan
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@joschisan joschisan requested review from a team as code owners July 13, 2024 06:33
@joschisan joschisan marked this pull request as draft July 13, 2024 06:36
@joschisan joschisan force-pushed the lnv2_ptlc branch 11 times, most recently from 3482638 to 17d280f Compare August 22, 2024 10:02
@joschisan joschisan marked this pull request as ready for review August 26, 2024 15:58
@elsirion elsirion self-requested a review August 26, 2024 16:45
m1sterc001guy
m1sterc001guy previously approved these changes Aug 26, 2024
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.

Looks fine to me, maybe @elsirion has more thoughts

elsirion
elsirion previously approved these changes Aug 28, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@elsirion elsirion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, just not sure if including the current logic is even worth it. Having the enum in place certainly is though. Should it maybe even be extensible for future proofing?

Comment on lines +182 to +186
PaymentImage::Point(pk) => match SecretKey::from_slice(preimage) {
Ok(sk) => sk.public_key(secp256k1::SECP256K1) == *pk,
Err(..) => false,
},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we just always make it return false as long as there is no real PTLC spec? Activating some new logic would be comparatively simple (no struct changes, just a new consensus version)

@joschisan joschisan added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 28, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Aug 28, 2024
@joschisan joschisan added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 28, 2024
Merged via the queue into fedimint:master with commit 10752d6 Aug 28, 2024
23 checks passed
@joschisan joschisan deleted the lnv2_ptlc branch August 28, 2024 12:58
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.

3 participants