Skip to content

Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged

Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist

Conversation

@tnull

@tnulltnull commented Nov 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.

Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.

Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.

Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.

@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull added this to the 0.2 milestone Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Nov 3, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

@codecov

codecovBot commented Nov 3, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt approved these changes Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Nov 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!

Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt merged commit 3f96d12 into lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025
23 of 25 checks passed
@wvanlint

wvanlint commented Nov 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2025
Merged
@TheBlueMatt

TheBlueMatt commented Nov 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Backported in #4221

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects

None yet

Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt
, '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" + '
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt

, '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" + '
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt

, '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); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
Don't prune `pending_requests` in `persist` by tnull · Pull Request #4201 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Don't prune pending_requests in persist - #4201
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Nov 3, 2025
Merged
Don't prune pending_requests in persist#4201
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
tnull:2025-10-dont-prune-pending-requests-on-persist
Conversation
@tnull
@tnulltnull
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Previously, we would also prune any pending GetInfo or expired Buy requests before we persist. This could have lead to races where we drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling persist.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the pending_requests and expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting. This generally makes sense, as pending_requests isn't currently persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
Thanks @wvanlint for reporting.
@tnull
Don't prune pending_requests in persist
5f8c54a
Previously, we would also prune any pending `GetInfo` or expired `Buy`
requests before we `persist`. This could have lead to races where we
drop a pending request and even remove the peer when calling `persist`.
Here, we simply split the pruning logic for the `pending_requests` and
expired JIT channel state, and only prune the latter before persisting.
This generally makes sense, as `pending_requests` isn't currently
persisted, so there is no need to prune before repersisting.
Both are however still pruned on peer disconnection.
@tnulltnull
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Nov 3, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Nov 3, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (7177cfc) to head (5f8c54a).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4201 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 88.86% 88.86% =======================================
Files 180 180 Lines 137910 137913 +3 Branches 137910 137913 +3 =======================================
+ Hits 122547 122560 +13 + Misses 12556 12540 -16 - Partials 2807 2813 +6 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests88.71% <100.00%> (+<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.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Nov 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, right, thanks.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 3f96d12
into
lightningdevkit:mainNov 3, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

@wvanlint
wvanlint
commented
Nov 3, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
All our integration tests succeed now with this change on top of 0.2.0-rc1, thanks for the quick fix!
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Nov 12, 2025
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
commented
Nov 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Backported in #4221
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

lightning-liquidity

Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tnull@ldk-reviews-bot@wvanlint@TheBlueMatt