protofsm: add option to allow conf resp to return full block#9726
Merged
Roasbeef merged 2 commits intolightningnetwork:masterfrom Jun 3, 2025
Merged
protofsm: add option to allow conf resp to return full block#9726Roasbeef merged 2 commits intolightningnetwork:masterfrom
Roasbeef merged 2 commits intolightningnetwork:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are limited to specific labels. 🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Roasbeef
force-pushed
the
protofsm-conf-mapper
branch
from
908a35e to
234949c
Compare
Roasbeef
force-pushed
the
protofsm-full-block-conf
branch
from
0276ea5 to
b58451f
Compare
ffranr
approved these changes
May 29, 2025
Comment on lines
+119
to
+123
| // FullBlock is a boolean that indicates whether we want the full block | ||
| // in the returned response. This is useful if callers want to create an | ||
| // SPV proof for the transaction post conf. | ||
| FullBlock bool | ||
|
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could name this field IncludeBlock which would align with the chainntnfs options field name (chainntnfs.WithIncludeBlock() etc).
GeorgeTsagk
approved these changes
May 30, 2025
Collaborator
GeorgeTsagk
left a comment
GeorgeTsagk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, pending the lint errs
GeorgeTsagk
changed the title
In this commit, we add an option to allow a conf req caller to receive the full block. This is useful if the caller wants to be able to create an SPV proof.
Roasbeef
force-pushed
the
protofsm-full-block-conf
branch
from
b58451f to
3f03752
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
In this PR, we add an option to allow a conf req caller to receive
the full block. This is useful if the caller wants to be able to create
an SPV proof.