-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
[RFC] event: expose BOLT12 invoice in PaymentSuccessful for proof of payment #733
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
Open
vincenzopalazzo
wants to merge
1
commit into
lightningdevkit:main
Choose a base branch
from
vincenzopalazzo:macros/bolt12-pop
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and old review comments may become outdated.
+331
−8
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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.
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.
Can we make this an
instead?
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.
Mh I was hacking round this this afternoon and this is what I got
The key part is:
Objects cannot currently be used in enum variant data
It looks like that it is happening because
Bolt12InvoiceandStaticInvoiceare defined as interface (Objects) in UniFFI, they cannot be used as parameters in enum variants.Am I missing something?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
No, at least on our current
uniffiversion you are indeed correct I'm afraid.So we are at an impasse here: I really dislike making this a
structwith optional fields (and also adding serialization on bindings wrapper, but we could solve for this otherwise). Unfortunately, Uniffi only added support for enum fields that are objects in mozilla/uniffi-rs#2412, which however shipped in v0.29. We however can't update to v0.29 as we have users that useNordSecurity/uniffi-bindgen-gowhich notoriously lags behind and doesn't get updated (see NordSecurity/uniffi-bindgen-go#40).So I think this is a rare occasion where I'd be in favor of just not keeping the bindings in sync with the Rust interface for now and coming back to it either when a bindings users shout or once we finally can upgrade.
Could you:
Eventenum field behind#[cfg(not(feature = "uniffi"))]Sorry for the churn, hope you didn't spend too much time trying to make it work!