Skip to content

Conversation

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Oct 27, 2025

I've assigned @wpaulino 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.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt changed the title Pin syn for yet another MSRV breakage [0.2] Pin syn for yet another MSRV breakage Oct 27, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 27, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.80%. Comparing base (58402ed) to head (12c52c7).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on 0.2.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              0.2    #4177      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.77%   88.80%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         180      180              
  Lines      136626   136626              
  Branches   136626   136626              
==========================================
+ Hits       121288   121332      +44     
+ Misses      12531    12497      -34     
+ Partials     2807     2797      -10     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzing 21.64% <ø> (ø)
tests 88.64% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2025-10-syn-0.2-msrv branch 3 times, most recently from 8c4aa07 to 76f0f5b Compare October 27, 2025 20:00
Copy link
Contributor

@tankyleo tankyleo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds like we also need to do this for the downstream no-std crate build, and the msrv-no-dev-deps-check... this below passes on my machine on 1.63

diff --git a/ci/ci-tests.sh b/ci/ci-tests.sh
index c21c1e0e7..a0b54465a 100755
--- a/ci/ci-tests.sh
+++ b/ci/ci-tests.sh
@@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ cargo test -p lightning-invoice --verbose --color always --no-default-features -
 echo -e "\n\nTesting no_std build on a downstream no-std crate"
 # check no-std compatibility across dependencies
 pushd no-std-check
+[ "$RUSTC_MINOR_VERSION" -lt 68 ] && cargo update -p syn --precise "2.0.106" --verbose
 cargo check --verbose --color always
 [ "$CI_MINIMIZE_DISK_USAGE" != "" ] && cargo clean
 popd
@@ -131,6 +132,7 @@ popd
 # Test that we can build downstream code with only the "release pins".
 pushd msrv-no-dev-deps-check
 PIN_RELEASE_DEPS
+[ "$RUSTC_MINOR_VERSION" -lt 68 ] && cargo update -p syn --precise "2.0.106" --verbose
 cargo check
 [ "$CI_MINIMIZE_DISK_USAGE" != "" ] && cargo clean
 popd

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Grr, thanks.

Copy link
Contributor

@tankyleo tankyleo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CI failures seem unrelated

Comment on lines -266 to -267
cd fuzz && cargo update -p regex --precise "1.9.6" --verbose
cd write-seeds && cargo update -p regex --precise "1.9.6" --verbose
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Making sure the --verbose delete here was intentional ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea, seemed useless.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt merged commit 244fcf3 into lightningdevkit:0.2 Oct 28, 2025
34 of 45 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants