rustfmt: Run on the routing directory (2/3)
#3337
Conversation
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-router-2
branch
from
8a8e6fa to
01e58df
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3337 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.66% 89.77% +0.11%
==========================================
Files 126 126
Lines 103226 105591 +2365
Branches 103226 105591 +2365
==========================================
+ Hits 92555 94796 +2241
- Misses 7954 8089 +135
+ Partials 2717 2706 -11
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-router-2
branch
from
01e58df to
947cf72
Compare
|
Rebased on main after #3336 landed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not familiar with mutation Ci waorkflow but looks like that the failure is unrelated? https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/actions/runs/11026258813/job/30622498871?pr=3337
otherwise LGMT
| fee_proportional_millionths: 0, | ||
| excess_data: Vec::new() | ||
| }); | ||
| update_channel( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mind going through these and pulling the update out into a variable to skip the extra 4 or five lines?
| default_node_features().le_flags() | ||
| ); // We dont pass flags in from invoices yet | ||
| assert_eq!(route.paths[0].hops[4].channel_features.le_flags(), &Vec::<u8>::new()); | ||
| // We can't learn any flags from invoices, sadly |
Based on #3336.
This is PR 2/3, just formatting
router.rs.Followups: #3338.