Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
For my understanding of LDK Node, why do we duplicate this struct here vs using the
rust-lightningtype?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.
The reason is mostly bindings, as we don't have a good way to expose all fields on the LDK variant (e.g.,
InitFeatures, but we also have our own version ofconfig: ChannelConfigas the LDKenum MaxDustHTLCExposurehas tuple enum variants which our bindings generatoruniffidoesn't support). It's also due to the docs onChannelDetailsreferring to LDK APIs that aren't exposed in LDK Node. And, lastly, in LDK Node we also made the decision to not expose LDK's forkedOutPointvariant but rather consistently only ever exposebitcoin::OutPoint.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.
Ah, got it. Thanks for that explanation!