Only log if we actually persisted `LiquidityManager` data (0.2 backport) by tnull · Pull Request #4662 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull · 2026-06-05T07:44:58Z

Backport of #4246.

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level.

Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

Previously, we logged "Persisting LiquidityManager..." on each background processor wakeup, which can be very spammy, even on TRACE level. Here, we opt to only log if something actually needed to be repersisted and we did so (in case of failure we're logging that anyways, too).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-06-05T07:45:00Z

I've assigned @valentinewallace 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.

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:33Z

+	/// Persists the state of the service handlers towards the given [`KVStore`] implementation if
+	/// needed.
+	///
+	/// Returns `true` if it persisted sevice handler data.


Typo: "sevice" → "service"

ldk-claude-review-bot · 2026-06-05T07:48:47Z

Review Summary

Issues found:

lightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs:1857 — Missing did_persist = true in the need_remove fallback path where persist_peer_state actually writes data (peer was no longer prunable after re-acquiring the write lock).
lightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs:319 — Same missing did_persist = true in the equivalent need_remove fallback path.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:676 — Typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.
lightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs:1291 — Same typo "sevice" → "service" in doc comment.

Issues 1 and 2 are low severity since they only affect logging accuracy, but they make the did_persist return value incorrect in an edge case: when a peer was initially flagged for removal, but by the time the write lock is acquired it has new state, the code calls persist_peer_state (which does write to the KV store) without setting did_persist = true.

valentinewallace

LGTM aside from Claude's feedback

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-08T18:38:50Z

If you're gonna backport something to 0.2, please just go ahead and backport all the pending things with the backport 0.2 tag? Also please include the Backport of tag at the end of each backported commit and list any conflicted files resolved with a short (two word) description of the scale of the conflicts.

tnull · 2026-06-12T08:31:45Z

Superseded by #4683

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T10:44:50Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

tnull · 2026-06-12T10:54:23Z

Oh oops forgot about this sorry.

No worries, question is if we want the claude comments above addressed or not. But seem relatively minor?

TheBlueMatt · 2026-06-12T11:27:16Z

If we do we should fix them upstream and backport, not fix them in a backport.

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

tnull changed the title ~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data~~Only log if we actually persisted LiquidityManager data (0.2 backport)Jun 5, 2026

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/manager.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps2/service.rs

ldk-claude-review-bot reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning-liquidity/src/lsps5/service.rs

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 5, 2026 07:55

valentinewallace reviewed Jun 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

tnull self-assigned this Jun 11, 2026

tnull added this to Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Jun 11, 2026

tnull closed this Jun 12, 2026

github-project-automationBot moved this from Goal: Merge to Done in Weekly Goals Jun 12, 2026

tnull mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2026
Few LSPS fixes #4700
Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

tnull commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 5, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-claude-review-botJun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-claude-review-bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Review Summary

Issues found:

Uh oh!

valentinewallace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

tnull commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

tnull commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

tnull commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 5, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-claude-review-botJun 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ldk-claude-review-bot commented Jun 5, 2026

Review Summary

Issues found:

Uh oh!

valentinewallace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

tnull commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

tnull commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

tnull commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 5, 2026•
edited
Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 5, 2026•
edited
Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 5, 2026•
edited
Loading

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 5, 2026•
edited
Loading