Skip to content

Correct crate versions and make CI semver test run on all crates (esp lightning-invoice)#4375

Merged
wpaulino merged 2 commits intolightningdevkit:mainfrom
TheBlueMatt:2026-02-version-bumps-as-required
Feb 4, 2026
Merged

Correct crate versions and make CI semver test run on all crates (esp lightning-invoice)#4375
wpaulino merged 2 commits intolightningdevkit:mainfrom
TheBlueMatt:2026-02-version-bumps-as-required

Conversation

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Feb 3, 2026

I've assigned @wpaulino 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.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2026-02-version-bumps-as-required branch from 48f1245 to 8691cba Compare February 3, 2026 15:09
The semver CI check is great but only checks the immediate crate in
question. It doesn't catch that many of our crates depend on
`lightning` and thus have actually broken semver as the types they
use have changed to `lightning` 0.3.

Here we hump the version of crates that have actually changed
semver since 0.2.

In addition to those that depend on `lightning`,
`lightning-invoice`'s API has changed (but was not being checked by
the semver CI task).

Finally, `lightning-macros` was updated to 0.2.1, so the version is
changed to 0.2.2.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2026-02-version-bumps-as-required branch 2 times, most recently from 21d443f to 19c29df Compare February 3, 2026 15:49
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2026-02-version-bumps-as-required branch from 19c29df to a123cfa Compare February 3, 2026 15:51
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 3, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.00%. Comparing base (4800a47) to head (a123cfa).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4375      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.01%   86.00%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         156      156              
  Lines      102781   102781              
  Branches   102781   102781              
==========================================
- Hits        88409    88394      -15     
- Misses      11864    11878      +14     
- Partials     2508     2509       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
tests 86.00% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️

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.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

👋 The first review has been submitted!

Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.

@wpaulino wpaulino merged commit f43803d into lightningdevkit:main Feb 4, 2026
21 checks passed
with:
manifest-path: lightning-transaction-sync/Cargo.toml
feature-group: only-explicit-features
features: esplora-blocking
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, we did this intentionally for good reason, as esplora-blocking and esplora-async are mutually exclusive for example. If you enable both, you end up just checking the async variant. I think at the time there were more features like this, e.g., BP's futures.

manifest-path: lightning-transaction-sync/Cargo.toml
feature-group: only-explicit-features
features: esplora-async
- name: Install Rust stable toolchain
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull Feb 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not just stick with the appropriate Github action rather than doing something custom?

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Feb 4, 2026

Now opened #4378 to revert the last commit, let's discuss there what parts of the changes still make sense.

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.

4 participants