bol09: Specify behavior when a node specifies both optional and required features#1095
Merged
Roasbeef merged 1 commit intolightning:masterfrom Aug 14, 2023
Conversation
2e54fc9 to
2e828eb
Compare
Contributor
|
ACK 2e828eb |
27 tasks
1d52361 to
da27563
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Ok, I made the requested change and would love another review run. In addition, I fold the sender requirements under a single list inside the commit 90af56b If you disagree I can drop it! |
carlaKC
reviewed
Jul 31, 2023
Contributor
carlaKC
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some small wording nits, otherwise LGTM
23a587a to
88d1d6a
Compare
ProofOfKeags
reviewed
Aug 1, 2023
morehouse
reviewed
Aug 1, 2023
ProofOfKeags
reviewed
Aug 4, 2023
09-features.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
+73
to
+74
| * if both the optional and the mandatory feature its in a pair are set, | ||
| the feature should be treated as mandatory. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * if both the optional and the mandatory feature its in a pair are set, | |
| the feature should be treated as mandatory. | |
| * if both the optional and the mandatory feature its in a pair are set: | |
| * the feature SHOULD be treated as mandatory | |
| * the feature MUST NOT be treated as optional | |
| * the receiving node MAY fail the feature negotiation |
See this for rationale
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the receiving node MAY fail the feature negotiation
No, this is the point of my PR. It is ok to declare both fields and if they are, the node should take the mandatory. This suggestion does not convince me, I am sorry.
25 tasks
t-bast
reviewed
Aug 11, 2023
Collaborator
t-bast
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM once the typos/nits are fixed.
2a23ce5 to
c8053c5
Compare
t-bast
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2023
…red features While reviewing a patch on lnprototest, I encountered a scenario where the BOLT 9 specification needed to provide clear guidance. As a result, this commit adds specific requirements to determine the appropriate behaviour when a node specifies both optional and required features. Additionally, if this situation appears to be an implementation bug, it will be taken care of accordingly. Reported-by: lnprototest Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
c8053c5 to
ec59f7c
Compare
t-bast
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2023
Contributor
Author
|
OK, I fixup the change in the wrong commit so I had to squash the two commits in two! it should not be a big deal |
Collaborator
|
Ack ec59f7c |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While reviewing a patch on lnprototest, I encountered a scenario where the BOLT 9 specification needed to provide clear guidance.
As a result, this commit adds specific requirements to determine the appropriate behaviour when a node specifies both optional and required features.
Additionally, if this situation appears to be an
implementation bug, it will be taken care of accordingly.
Reported-by: lnprototest