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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Onion messages: support reply paths #1652
Onion messages: support reply paths #1652
Changes from 1 commit
dceca5b
351349c
950b7d7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume in the future once we have a router to figure out message routes we'll make the argument a simple boolean and do a path lookup for a reply path route (or in a new function or whatever)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm I think that makes sense. This API may remain pretty low-level and keep a version of the parameter, but we'll need some way of getting a
reply_path
for outboundinvoice_request
s, likely via therouter
you mention.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIUC,
reply_path
is captured by reference (I think?) in the closure, so it will beNone
if this case is hit more than once when called byconstruct_keys_callback
. Is this the desired behavior? I guess so because there would only be onePayload::Receive
?Related, the same may occur below where
reply_path.take()
is called again outside of the closure. Partly trying to check my understanding if that case will be hit below but not in the closure.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep, that's intentional. There should only be one
Payload::Receive
pushed, soreply_path
should only betake
n once.