Skip to content

Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964

Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged

Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
shaavan:ir-check

Conversation

@shaavan

@shaavanshaavan commented Jul 26, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.

To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.

Additional changes:

  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.

Reasoning:

This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.

Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:

  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.

Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.

This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.

With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 26, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

@shaavan

shaavan commented Jul 26, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

cc @jkczyz

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 28, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@jkczyz
jkczyz self-requested a review July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 30, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs Outdated
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 6, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@shaavan

shaavan commented Aug 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):
Addressed @jkczyz comments

Changes:

  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.

@codecov

codecovBot commented Aug 7, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 9, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 11, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 13, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@shaavan

shaavan commented Aug 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):
Addressed @jkczyz comments

Changes:

  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.

graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot reviewed Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated
@shaavan

shaavan commented Aug 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):

Changes:

  1. Rebase on main

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 16, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 18, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Aug 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder

Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@valentinewallace

valentinewallace commented Aug 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel

@valentinewallace
valentinewallace removed their request for review August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager reviewed Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated
@shaavanshaavan mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2025
Closed
@shaavan

shaavan commented Aug 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

@joostjager

Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.

Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.

@joostjager

joostjager commented Aug 25, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)

@shaavan

shaavan commented Aug 25, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):
Addressed @joostjager comments

Changes:

  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]

joostjager
joostjager previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes

@joostjagerjoostjager left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.

The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:

  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of

Will leave full final review to @jkczyz

@shaavan
shaavan requested a review from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 15, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated
@shaavan

shaavan commented Sep 18, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):
Addressed @jkczyz comments

Changes:

  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit

@shaavan
shaavan requested a review from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 20, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 24, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs Outdated
@shaavan

shaavan commented Sep 26, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)
Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.

Changes

  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.

@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan

shaavan commented Sep 26, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)

Changes:

  • Rebase on main

@jkczyz
jkczyz merged commit b6607a7 into lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025
25 checks passed
@shaavanshaavan mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2025
Closed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments
+1 more reviewer
@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Introduce Stronger Typing for `VerifiedInvoiceRequest` and Refactor Invoice Building Flow by shaavan · Pull Request #3964 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964
Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Conversation
@shaavan
@shaavanshaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.
To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.
Additional changes:
  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.
Reasoning:
This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.
Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:
  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.
Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.
This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.
With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
cc @jkczyz
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 28, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
self-requested a review
July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 31, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 6, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Aug 7, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.

📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
 🚀 New features to boost your workflow: 
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 9, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 11, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 13, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.
graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot
reviewed
Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):
Changes:
  1. Rebase on main
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 16, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
removed their request for review
August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
 Closed

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@joostjager
Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.
@joostjager
joostjager
commented
Aug 25, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 25, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):

Addressed @joostjager comments
Changes:
  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]
joostjager
joostjager
previously approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@joostjagerjoostjager
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.
The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:
  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of
Will leave full final review to @jkczyz
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 24, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)

Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.
Changes
  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.
@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)
Changes:
  • Rebase on main
@jkczyz
jkczyz
merged commit b6607a7
into
lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025

25 checks passed

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Nov 30, 2025
 Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Introduce Stronger Typing for `VerifiedInvoiceRequest` and Refactor Invoice Building Flow by shaavan · Pull Request #3964 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964
Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Conversation
@shaavan
@shaavanshaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.
To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.
Additional changes:
  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.
Reasoning:
This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.
Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:
  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.
Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.
This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.
With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
cc @jkczyz
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 28, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
self-requested a review
July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 31, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 6, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Aug 7, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.

📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
 🚀 New features to boost your workflow: 
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 9, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 11, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 13, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.
graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot
reviewed
Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):
Changes:
  1. Rebase on main
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 16, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
removed their request for review
August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
 Closed

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@joostjager
Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.
@joostjager
joostjager
commented
Aug 25, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 25, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):

Addressed @joostjager comments
Changes:
  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]
joostjager
joostjager
previously approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@joostjagerjoostjager
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.
The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:
  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of
Will leave full final review to @jkczyz
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 24, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)

Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.
Changes
  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.
@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)
Changes:
  • Rebase on main
@jkczyz
jkczyz
merged commit b6607a7
into
lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025

25 checks passed

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Nov 30, 2025
 Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Introduce Stronger Typing for `VerifiedInvoiceRequest` and Refactor Invoice Building Flow by shaavan · Pull Request #3964 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964
Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Conversation
@shaavan
@shaavanshaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.
To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.
Additional changes:
  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.
Reasoning:
This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.
Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:
  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.
Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.
This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.
With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
cc @jkczyz
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 28, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
self-requested a review
July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 31, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 6, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Aug 7, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.

📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
 🚀 New features to boost your workflow: 
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 9, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 11, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 13, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.
graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot
reviewed
Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):
Changes:
  1. Rebase on main
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 16, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
removed their request for review
August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
 Closed

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@joostjager
Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.
@joostjager
joostjager
commented
Aug 25, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 25, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):

Addressed @joostjager comments
Changes:
  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]
joostjager
joostjager
previously approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@joostjagerjoostjager
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.
The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:
  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of
Will leave full final review to @jkczyz
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 24, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)

Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.
Changes
  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.
@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)
Changes:
  • Rebase on main
@jkczyz
jkczyz
merged commit b6607a7
into
lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025

25 checks passed

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Nov 30, 2025
 Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Introduce Stronger Typing for `VerifiedInvoiceRequest` and Refactor Invoice Building Flow by shaavan · Pull Request #3964 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964
Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Conversation
@shaavan
@shaavanshaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.
To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.
Additional changes:
  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.
Reasoning:
This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.
Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:
  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.
Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.
This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.
With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
cc @jkczyz
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 28, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
self-requested a review
July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 31, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 6, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Aug 7, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.

📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
 🚀 New features to boost your workflow: 
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 9, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 11, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 13, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.
graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot
reviewed
Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):
Changes:
  1. Rebase on main
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 16, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
removed their request for review
August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
 Closed

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@joostjager
Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.
@joostjager
joostjager
commented
Aug 25, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 25, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):

Addressed @joostjager comments
Changes:
  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]
joostjager
joostjager
previously approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@joostjagerjoostjager
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.
The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:
  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of
Will leave full final review to @jkczyz
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 24, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)

Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.
Changes
  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.
@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)
Changes:
  • Rebase on main
@jkczyz
jkczyz
merged commit b6607a7
into
lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025

25 checks passed

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Nov 30, 2025
 Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Introduce Stronger Typing for `VerifiedInvoiceRequest` and Refactor Invoice Building Flow by shaavan · Pull Request #3964 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964
Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Conversation
@shaavan
@shaavanshaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.
To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.
Additional changes:
  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.
Reasoning:
This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.
Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:
  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.
Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.
This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.
With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
cc @jkczyz
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 28, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
self-requested a review
July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 31, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 6, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Aug 7, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.

📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
 🚀 New features to boost your workflow: 
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 9, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 11, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 13, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.
graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot
reviewed
Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):
Changes:
  1. Rebase on main
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 16, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
removed their request for review
August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
 Closed

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@joostjager
Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.
@joostjager
joostjager
commented
Aug 25, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 25, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):

Addressed @joostjager comments
Changes:
  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]
joostjager
joostjager
previously approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@joostjagerjoostjager
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.
The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:
  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of
Will leave full final review to @jkczyz
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 24, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)

Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.
Changes
  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.
@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)
Changes:
  • Rebase on main
@jkczyz
jkczyz
merged commit b6607a7
into
lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025

25 checks passed

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Nov 30, 2025
 Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
})();
Introduce Stronger Typing for `VerifiedInvoiceRequest` and Refactor Invoice Building Flow by shaavan · Pull Request #3964 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow - #3964
Merged
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Oct 14, 2025
Merged
Introduce Stronger Typing for VerifiedInvoiceRequest and Refactor Invoice Building Flow#3964
jkczyz merged 5 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
shaavan:ir-check
Conversation
@shaavan
@shaavanshaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
This PR refactors how invoice building works from a VerifiedInvoiceRequest, replacing runtime checks with compile-time guarantees. Previously, invoice builder selection (between using_derived_key and using_explicit_key) was based on an optional key field, which left room for misuse and bugs that could only be caught at runtime.
To address this, VerifiedInvoiceRequest is now parameterized by a SigningPubkeyStrategy, exposing only the appropriate builder method for each variant. This enforces correctness at the type level and prevents invalid combinations from compiling.
Additional changes:
  • Builder method split: The OffersMessageFlow interface now uses distinct builder paths based on the VerifiedInvoiceRequest variant, shifting variant matching to compile time.
  • Signing moved to ChannelManager: Aligns with existing patterns and gives users flexibility to customize the InvoiceBuilder before signing.
  • Closure for hash/secret generation: Centralizes (payment_hash, payment_secret) creation and consolidates amount_msats into a single authoritative source.
Reasoning:
This change lays the groundwork for #3833, which introduces Flow events to support manual handling of OffersMessages.
Invoice building from an InvoiceRequest depends on a SigningPubkeyStrategy, which can be either:
  • DerivedSigningPubkey: the key is derived from the offer inside the request, or
  • ExplicitSigningPubkey: the key is supplied by the user when signing the final invoice.
Previously, we relied on runtime checks to validate builder–strategy alignment. While this worked, it lacked compile-time safety—invalid combinations could still compile and only fail at runtime.
This was acceptable under the previous model, where users couldn’t build invoices manually (e.g., when using the default OffersMessageFlow with ChannelManager). But with the Flow event API introduced in #3833, users will now handle invoice requests asynchronously and construct invoices directly.
With this PR, only the valid builder–strategy pairs are allowed at compile time. This improves type safety, prevents incorrect usage, and makes the manual invoice-generation flow more robust as LDK evolves.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 26, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Jul 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
cc @jkczyz
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 28, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
self-requested a review
July 29, 2025 15:21
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jul 31, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 4th Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz@valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Aug 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 6, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 5th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.01 to pr3964.02 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  1. Improved functional naming, and documentations.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Aug 7, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 84.36019% with 33 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.62%. Comparing base (0d64c86) to head (6e197de).
⚠️ Report is 72 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs84.93%9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs81.48%10 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/flow.rs87.09%0 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs75.00%2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/offers_tests.rs87.50%1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3964 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.60% 88.62% +0.01% 
==========================================
Files 180 180 Lines 134878 134947 +69 Branches 134878 134947 +69 ==========================================
+ Hits 119511 119591 +80 + Misses 12608 12587 -21 - Partials 2759 2769 +10 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.73% <0.00%> (-0.03%)⬇️
tests88.46% <84.36%> (+0.01%)⬆️
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.

📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
 🚀 New features to boost your workflow: 
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 9, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 6th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 11, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 7th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 13, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 8th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.02 to pr3964.03 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Rename InvoiceSigningInfo -> InvoiceRequestVerifiedFromOffer.
graphite-app[bot]
graphite-appBot
reviewed
Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.03 to pr3964.04 (diff):
Changes:
  1. Rebase on main
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 16, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 9th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 10th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 11th Reminder
Hey @valentinewallace! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
commented
Aug 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
I'm unfortunately not going to have time to review this in a timely manner, so unassigning myself and letting the bot take the wheel
@valentinewallace
valentinewallace
removed their request for review
August 20, 2025 20:15
joostjager
joostjager
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
 Closed

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@joostjager
Can I see this somewhere? So that it becomes more clear where the benefits are of the stronger typing.
Thanks for the thoughtful review, Joost! I’m working through your points and will follow up with concrete changes soon. In the meantime, I’ve updated the PR description to explain the motivation a bit more, especially around the manual invoice request handling mentioned by Jeff. Would love your thoughts when you get a chance.
@joostjager
joostjager
commented
Aug 25, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Just to be sure that I am looking at the benefits in the right location, I posted #3833 (comment)
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Aug 25, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.04 to pr3964.05 (diff):

Addressed @joostjager comments
Changes:
  1. Cleaned up commit history, by squashing the relevant commits.
  2. Introduce commit to remove a [rustfmt::skip]
joostjager
joostjager
previously approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@joostjagerjoostjager
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HIgh-level ack, although I remain doubtful of the cost/benefit of this PR. A runtime check isn't the end of the world, especially if it isn't hard to hit the case during testing.
The end result isn't completely ideal either, taking some away from the benefit side of the scale:
  • Enum + generic feels a bit redundant, even though I understand the reason for doing it
  • Code duplication
  • Need for macros which we generally want to get rid of
Will leave full final review to @jkczyz
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 12, 2025 16:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 15, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 18, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.05 to pr3964.06 (diff):

Addressed @jkczyz comments
Changes:
  • Minor documentation cleanups
  • Removed 'f:' prefix from refactor commit
  • Removed unrelated change from commit
@shaavan
shaavan
requested a review
from jkczyzSeptember 18, 2025 10:47
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 20, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 24, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review.

Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/offers/invoice.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/offers/flow.rs
Outdated

@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.06 → pr3964.07 (diff)

Addressed @jkczyz’s comments.
Changes
  1. Removes redundant code snippet.
  2. Removes unneeded lifetime parameter from all create_invoice_builder* functions.
@shaavan
Refactor: Convert fields function to macro
2a5f168
In the following commits we will introduce `fields` function
for other types as well, so to keep code DRY we convert the
function to a macro.
@shaavan
Introduce VerifiedInvoiceRequest<S: SigningPubkeyStrategy>
eeb5d24
This commit reintroduces `VerifiedInvoiceRequest`, now parameterized by
`SigningPubkeyStrategy`.
The key motivation is to restrict which functions can be called on a
`VerifiedInvoiceRequest` based on its strategy type. This enables
compile-time guarantees — ensuring that an incorrect `InvoiceBuilder`
cannot be constructed for a given request, and misuses are caught early.
@shaavan
Introduce specific InvoiceBuilders in OffersMessageFlow
6851001
This change improves type safety and architectural clarity
by introducing dedicated `InvoiceBuilder` methods tied to
each variant of `VerifiedInvoiceRequestEnum`.
With this change, users are now required to match on the
enum variant before calling the corresponding builder method.
This pushes the responsibility of selecting the correct
builder to the user and ensures that invalid builder
usage is caught at compile time, rather than relying
on runtime checks.
The signing logic has also been moved from the builder
to the `ChannelManager`. This shift simplifies the
builder's role and aligns it with the rest of the API,
where builder methods return a configurable object that
can be extended before signing. The result is a more
consistent and predictable interface that separates
concerns cleanly and makes future maintenance easier.
@shaavan
Refactor: Introduce get_payment_info closure for invoice creation
d2dd871
To ensure correct Bolt12 payment flow behavior, the `amount_msats`
used for generating the `payment_hash`, `payment_secret`,
and payment path must remain consistent. Previously, these steps
could inadvertently diverge due to separate sources of `amount_msats`.
This commit refactors the interface to use a `get_payment_info` closure,
which captures the required variables and provides a single source of
truth for both payment info (payment_hash, payment_secret) and path
generation. This ensures consistency and eliminates subtle bugs
that could arise from mismatched amounts across the flow.
@shaavan
rustfmt: Remove skip from request_refund_payment
6e197de
@shaavan
shaavan
commented
Sep 26, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Updated frompr3964.07 → pr3964.08 (diff)
Changes:
  • Rebase on main
@jkczyz
jkczyz
merged commit b6607a7
into
lightningdevkit:mainOct 14, 2025

25 checks passed

@shaavanshaavan
mentioned this pull request
Nov 30, 2025
 Closed

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes
@joostjagerjoostjagerjoostjager left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@graphite-appgraphite-app[bot]graphite-app[bot] left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@shaavan@ldk-reviews-bot@valentinewallace@joostjager@jkczyz