Skip to content

Conversation

@tankyleo
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 10, 2025

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

@tankyleo tankyleo requested a review from TheBlueMatt December 10, 2025 20:46
@tankyleo
Copy link
Contributor Author

tankyleo commented Dec 10, 2025

Once this lands, I'll open a PR against main with just the documentation update.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 10, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (0c8269b) to head (14db8fb).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              0.2    #4274      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.87%   88.86%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         180      180              
  Lines      138117   138117              
  Branches   138117   138117              
==========================================
- Hits       122752   122743       -9     
- Misses      12543    12545       +2     
- Partials     2822     2829       +7     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzing 21.43% <ø> (+0.58%) ⬆️
tests 88.71% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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 changed the title Clarify splicing feature flag requirements [0.2] Clarify splicing feature flag requirements Dec 11, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you just open this against main to begin with? We have the release notes on main too so the entire commit needs to go upstream. Seems more sensible to push it upstream then backport rather than start on 0.2.

Comment on lines +4712 to +4713
/// Initiating a splice requires that the channel counterparty supports splicing. Existing
/// channels can be spliced, as long as a reconnection with the counterparty occurred after they
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
/// Initiating a splice requires that the channel counterparty supports splicing. Existing
/// channels can be spliced, as long as a reconnection with the counterparty occurred after they
/// Initiating a splice requires that the channel counterparty supports splicing. Any
/// channel (no matter the type) can be spliced, as long as a reconnection with the counterparty occurred after they

Comment on lines +4714 to +4715
/// enabled splicing. All channel types can be spliced, namely legacy, anchor, and
/// zero-fee-commitment channels.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we condense this a bit?

Suggested change
/// enabled splicing. All channel types can be spliced, namely legacy, anchor, and
/// zero-fee-commitment channels.
/// enabled splicing.

Support for accepting splices is gated on
`UserConfig::reject_inbound_splices`. Outbound splices can be initiated with
`ChannelManager::splice_channel`.
`ChannelManager::splice_channel`. Initiating a splice requires that the
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm actually not really sure about including yet more detail in the release notes here. Its already super long and we don't generally include low-level details here unless missing the details will leave applications broken.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

👋 The first review has been submitted!

Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.

@tankyleo tankyleo self-assigned this Dec 11, 2025
@tankyleo tankyleo moved this to Goal: Merge in Weekly Goals Dec 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Goal: Merge

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants