-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
Add errors to protofsm.MsgEndpoint
methods
#9110
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
Add errors to protofsm.MsgEndpoint
methods
#9110
Conversation
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 Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 (
|
// to those that can handle it the message. | ||
var couldSend bool | ||
for _, endpoint := range endpoints { | ||
if endpoint.CanHandle(msg) { |
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.
Why does CanHandle
need an error? The implementation should just be doing a type assertion on the message to decide if it can handle it or not.
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.
Would say the same for SendMessage
above, can you give more detail re the motivating context here?
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.
Yeah, the interface was changed to support returning an error, as this was required in tapd in order to allow for the server readiness check to fail
https://github.com/lightninglabs/taproot-assets/pull/1126/files#diff-366e46a40f6f60b4f7614eb0976bb51820364bf5ca6ccc4787eb49d7bdbef3e6R827-R845
@guggero: review reminder |
This is no longer needed for lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1126 Closing |
This PR adds an extra
error
return field to theMsgEndpoint
interface methods