Skip to content

Conversation

@joostjager
Copy link
Contributor

To aid with debugging in tests.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Oct 29, 2025

👋 Thanks for assigning @valentinewallace 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.

To aid with debugging in tests.
@joostjager joostjager requested review from valentinewallace and removed request for jkczyz October 29, 2025 10:02
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.84%. Comparing base (17f7858) to head (067d659).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lightning/src/sign/type_resolver.rs 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/util/test_utils.rs 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4183   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.83%   88.84%           
=======================================
  Files         180      180           
  Lines      137504   137510    +6     
  Branches   137504   137510    +6     
=======================================
+ Hits       122155   122165   +10     
+ Misses      12538    12535    -3     
+ Partials     2811     2810    -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzing 20.90% <0.00%> (-0.59%) ⬇️
tests 88.68% <0.00%> (+<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.

Outbound,
}

#[derive(Debug)]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are some of these not conditional derived?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I followed the path of non-conditional derivation for non-public types, and only adding conditionals for public types or when required transitively. @TheBlueMatt mentioned offline "For internal types we should probably mostly just upstream Debug on most structs…"

Copy link
Contributor

@jkczyz jkczyz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. CI has some failures but look unrelated.

@jkczyz jkczyz merged commit 2849ae2 into lightningdevkit:main Oct 30, 2025
23 of 25 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.

3 participants