-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 912
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Expose listoffer
and offer
over grpc
#6896
Conversation
09423a5
to
b772640
Compare
Looks like the "flexibility" of having multiple different ways to specify a recurrence is biting us here. We should really consolidate on one way to express things, and deprecate the alternative uses. This ought to simplify the schema, as well as supporting the functionality going forwards. WDYT @rustyrussell? Ideally I'd like to just use the string variant, as that seems to be expressive enough. |
f1b0276
to
23085b2
Compare
See #7034 |
23085b2
to
46b4664
Compare
Rebased on top of #7034 to fold the simplification of arguments in |
The `amount` field is intended to be either a native unit (`msat`, `sat` or `btc`) or it can also be a non-native unit that needs to be converted into native when creating the invoice. As such limiting the `amount` to only be native is very restrictive.
I had to do some trickery with the interchangeability between string and int, but now it works as expected.
46b4664
to
a47d699
Compare
The schema had a minor issue with the stringified variants and the object variants. The object variant isnt accessible from the RPC, rather we must use the string variant. This now passes the tests. Also rebased on top of |
Resolves #6892
I was unsure of some of the protobuf definitions for the
recurrence
-related types, had to take a look at bolt12.c and see from there. Definitely requires a second look.Currently missing:
rootdir
positional argument after being installed and sourced, will check)