-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 98
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
Bump litd to version v0.12.3-alpha
#719
Conversation
A question for reviewers: Line 70 in abf231b
That way users could provide us with more detailed info when the LNC connection fails. The downside being though, that the |
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.
tACK LGTM 🚀
Tested AutoFees and swaps with TW on regtest. No issues.
The downside being though, that the gbn subsystem has pretty verbose logging in debug + trace log level.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. It would be a bit of an annoyance seeing log messages every second in debug
, but that can be avoided with a custom debuglevel
. To me this isn't a huge deal.
a29fd36
to
c2b3c7c
Compare
Rebased to resolve merge conflict.
Thanks! Would also be great to get @guggero & @ellemouton's opinions regarding this as well :) |
Maybe there are logs in that area that should be downgraded a level before we add the logs here? |
We should also add I think we should look into the log spamminess, but perhaps in its own PR. For now I think it's okay to just adjust the log level manually if the verbosity is too high for one's taste. |
c2b3c7c
to
d0a71b5
Compare
Thanks for the reviews everyone!
Great, thanks! Added with the latest push.
Ok agree that we should probably look over the log level spamminess and consider downgrading the log level, but I take it that you both agree that it makes sense to at least add the gbn subsystem to the logger before the release then? I've added it now with the latest push :). Then we can look into the spamminess in separate PRs, potentially also on the LNC repos side, as I for example think the handshake & resending of packets + setting of timeout values is probably more important info than packets being sent back and forth. |
@ViktorTigerstrom - just how bad is the current default level (or even debug) level of spam from the GBN side? |
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.
utACK, LGTM 🎉
So with the default level ( In With the |
Yeah should probably be trace level. Often it's nice that users run with Debug in case things go wrong... what do you guys think about a small LNC pr just to change the levels of those logs & then we just point to the commit hash here? (ie, no new LNC version needed) cc @guggero If y'all think that majority of users run in info anyways then all good 👍 Gonna add my LGTM so long as this is non-blocking but nice to have |
Sure, we can do that. I do normally run everything on debug so I would probably see those logs. But can still customize my log level, so no big deal either way. Depends on how much else is on people's plate currently and how urgent this release is? |
Bump lnd to `v0.17.4-beta`, loop to `v0.27.0-beta`, taproot-assets to and `v0.3.3` lightning-node-connect to `v0.3.0-alpha`. This commit also bumps the loop swapserverrpc to `v1.0.6`, as it's required by the new loop version.
d0a71b5
to
37b8453
Compare
Added an updated LNC dependency which has less verbose logging under |
This PR bumps the litd version to
v0.12.3-alpha
.This PR also bumps lnd to v0.17.4-beta, loop to
v0.27.0-beta
and lightning-node-connect tov0.3.0-alpha
and adds the new included protos.I've tested its compatibility with:
v0.3.0-alpha
.v0.3.0-alpha
.