-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 339
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
Score payment paths from events in BackgroundProcessor
#1996
Score payment paths from events in BackgroundProcessor
#1996
Conversation
No, I think an HRTB is the correct solution here, not a GAT - we aren't looking for a specific type but rather a range of types. Sadly we've had issues with that in the bindings due to rustc limitations in resolving HRTBs, but we'll see if it works this time. |
If we had GATs, we could remove the lifetime parameter from
|
Ah, right. |
Hmm, that seems like a big issue if it breaks bindings. Approach-wise, I wonder if that means the scoring needs to happen elsewhere? |
No, let's do it The Right Way first, and if it breaks in bindings we can figure it out later. |
96aa4ed
to
a1a0bc3
Compare
Codecov ReportBase: 90.91% // Head: 90.82% // Decreases project coverage by
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1996 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.91% 90.82% -0.09%
==========================================
Files 99 99
Lines 52505 52690 +185
Branches 52505 52690 +185
==========================================
+ Hits 47735 47858 +123
- Misses 4770 4832 +62
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
a1a0bc3
to
4b22708
Compare
LGTM, feel free to squash. |
4b22708
to
a786d47
Compare
24e9a51
to
640d9e5
Compare
640d9e5
to
2f9c3e5
Compare
Opening this as a draft before I finish testing+supporting in async to get ACKs on the patch.It uses a higher-ranked trait bound, and works in the sample. The real solution is GATs, which doesn't fit our MSRV.
We want to move scoring here to migrate it out of the
InvoicePayer
as part of moving payment retries toChannelManager
.Partially addresses #1932.