Rename Event::PaymentClaimable::inbound_channel_ids to via_...
#3764
Conversation
|
I've assigned @valentinewallace as a reviewer! |
In c62aa23 we merged `via_channel_id` and `via_user_channel_id` and added support for MPP to the fields, but created a new `inbound_channel_ids` field to replace them. The existing fields were labeled `via_` to differentiate between inbound channels (i.e. channels which were to us) and channels over which we received the payment. Here we restore the original naming by renaming the new `inbound_channel_ids` field to `via_channel_ids`.
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2025-05-via-not-inbound
branch
from
824a703 to
60540f7
Compare
|
👋 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. |
|
I thought that in the context of a payment, inbound channel isn't ambiguous? I can understand that there might be some confusion if inbound channel is a global term within LDK for remote-initiated channels. Via is also non-ambiguous for an incoming payment and avoids that confusion, so better indeed. But is there a general term for "channel that something came in through"? Because in other cases, it might be necessary to distinguish between in and out, and via doesn't do that. |
In c62aa23 we merged
via_channel_idandvia_user_channel_idand added support for MPP to the fields, but created a newinbound_channel_idsfield to replace them. The existing fields were labeledvia_to differentiate between inbound channels (i.e. channels which were to us) and channels over which we received the payment.Here we restore the original naming by renaming the new
inbound_channel_idsfield tovia_channel_ids.