Simple Asset Loop out #872
Conversation
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
5e35488 to
fd87cb9
Compare
ultimate deliverable for asset specification will need to be specification by group_key, rather that asset_id only |
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
4 times, most recently
from
50a927f to
5b60e68
Compare
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
2 times, most recently
from
df72fdc to
8696132
Compare
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
8696132 to
abf4549
Compare
|
@bhandras: review reminder |
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
6 times, most recently
from
db8949c to
3315e2d
Compare
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
2 times, most recently
from
82fa50a to
242d754
Compare
| -- name: UpdateLoopOutAssetOffchainPayments :exec | ||
| UPDATE loopout_swaps_assets | ||
| SET | ||
| asset_amt_paid_swap = $2, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add an on-conflict clause?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not get into on-conflict territory, so returning an error would be okay i'd assume
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But this will never return an error. I meant that it could return an error if the amounts are already non-zero. It's also not super important but an extra measure that we don't update the row accidentally.
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
242d754 to
0f54b96
Compare
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
7bf86f8 to
90144f0
Compare
| @@ -552,6 +552,9 @@ message SwapStatus { | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could be placed in a separate commit
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
90144f0 to
4a47df4
Compare
| // the swap. | ||
| if request.AssetRFQRequest != nil { | ||
| rfqReq := request.AssetRFQRequest | ||
| if rfqReq.Expiry == 0 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we check that expiry and limit multiplier are sane? As in they're non negative etc.
| @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ require ( | |||
| github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/clock v1.1.1 | |||
| github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/queue v1.1.1 | |||
| github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/ticker v1.1.1 | |||
| github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/tlv v1.2.6 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be squashed with the commit before.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AKTSCHUALLY, if you run go mod tidy in the prior commit it will remove this
| -- name: UpdateLoopOutAssetOffchainPayments :exec | ||
| UPDATE loopout_swaps_assets | ||
| SET | ||
| asset_amt_paid_swap = $2, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But this will never return an error. I meant that it could return an error if the amounts are already non-zero. It's also not super important but an extra measure that we don't update the row accidentally.
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
4a47df4 to
81130f7
Compare
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
2 times, most recently
from
96a6136 to
712b659
Compare
sputn1ck
force-pushed
the
asset_simple_loopout
branch
from
712b659 to
51bdf04
Compare
This PR adds a simple asset loop out. Clients are able to specify a
asset_idduring the normal loop out operation. If an asset is provided, the loop client will try to pay the swap invoice with the connected taproot-assets daemon.