-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 913
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
Remove deprecated things for next release #4902
Remove deprecated things for next release #4902
Conversation
e327757
to
d48ef07
Compare
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.
LGTM d48ef07
Seems only that there is some python test related to the onion addr
d48ef07
to
3dd0860
Compare
3dd0860
to
fcfe521
Compare
We're about to require that fundchannel_complete() take a PSBT, where it does sanity checks to avoid this error, making this a difficult mistake to make. Is it time to remove this functionality anyway? @cdecker? Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
Changelog-Removed: JSON-RPC: `fundchannel_complete` `txid` and `txout` parameters (deprecated in v0.10.0)
Changelog-Removed: Plugins: The `message` field on the `custommsg` hook (deprecated in v0.10.0)
October was the date Torv2 is no longer supported by the Tor Project; it will probably not work at all by next release, so we should remove it now even though it's not quite the 6 months we prefer for deprecation cycles. I still see 110 nodes advertizing Torv2 (vs 10,292 Torv3); we still parse and display it, we just don't advertize or connect to it. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
And switch ```` to ``` (emacs colorization was confused!). Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
autotor is older, but statictor is better. Your options are really "use HiddenServiceDir in torrc" vs "use statictor", with the issue that statictor requires you to configure Tor for control access by c-lightning. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
This surprised me, since the CHANGELOG for [0.8.2] said: We now announce multiple addresses of the same type, if given. ([3609](ElementsProject#3609)) But it lied! Changelog-Fixed: We really do allow providing multiple addresses of the same type. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
blob[] is really a string from the commandline; leave it as a char. And parsing is much simpler than this code makes it seem! Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
…can's. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
For consistency. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
fcfe521
to
99cf8ba
Compare
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.
ack 99cf8ba
/* gossipd will refuse to announce the second one, sure, but it's | ||
* better to check and fail now if they've explicitly asked for it. */ | ||
wn = &ld->proposed_wireaddr[n].u.wireaddr; | ||
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) { | ||
const struct wireaddr *wi; | ||
|
||
if (ld->proposed_listen_announce[i] != ADDR_ANNOUNCE) | ||
continue; | ||
assert(ld->proposed_wireaddr[i].itype == ADDR_INTERNAL_WIREADDR); | ||
wi = &ld->proposed_wireaddr[i].u.wireaddr; | ||
|
||
if (wn->type != wi->type) | ||
continue; | ||
return tal_fmt(NULL, "Cannot announce address %s;" | ||
" already have %s which is the same type", | ||
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct wireaddr, wn), | ||
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct wireaddr, wi)); | ||
} |
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'm missing why we are removing this one?
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.
Because it is just preventing the user from doing something he must have done consciously. If the user gives multiple addresses he most likely has a reason for it and since it is allowed from the protocol spec, why prevent that?
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.
Yes, it used to be forbidden, but spec was updated to allow it (and other implementations allowed it).
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.
Ah, got it :) thanks and sorry for the missing
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 have only a small comment
CI seems to be OOM killing us; 5 may be too many under valgrind. VALGRIND=1 pytest tests/test_pay.py::test_fetchinvoice Before: 1 passed in 199.33s (0:03:19) After: 1 passed in 177.91s (0:02:57) Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
a4c41a0
to
3e49e08
Compare
This loads up 20MB of plugins temporarily; we seem to be getting OOM killed under CI and I wonder if this is contributing. Doesn't significantly reduce runtime here, but I have lots of memory. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
3e49e08
to
8d0d4dc
Compare
ACK 8d0d4dc |
Also reworked TOR.md for more clarity (since we remove v2).