rustfmt: Run on util/* (2/2)
#3323
Open
+1,421
−684
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3323 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 89.62% 89.56% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 127 127
Lines 103517 104124 +607
Branches 103517 104124 +607
==========================================
+ Hits 92780 93257 +477
- Misses 8041 8116 +75
- Partials 2696 2751 +55 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
tnull
commented
Sep 18, 2024
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-util
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6c4dd83
to
9b991df
Compare
|
Ugh, can we split this? 42 commits in one PR is just a lot... |
Alright, happy to if you prefer (although at least half of these commits are one-line diffs). Now split out ~the first half of commits to #3324. |
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-util
branch
2 times, most recently
from
60ae0af
to
e2dcdc7
Compare
|
Rebased after #3327 landed. |
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-util
branch
from
e2dcdc7
to
bc122e3
Compare
|
Rebased after #3324 landed. |
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-util
branch
from
bc122e3
to
572f48c
Compare
|
Rebased to resolve minor conflicts. |
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-util
branch
from
572f48c
to
449a0d6
Compare
|
Rebased once more to resolve minor conflicts. Any additional comments here after we landed the split-out commits in #3324, @TheBlueMatt ? |
.. we pull out `Mutex` field initialization into dedicated variables as they might otherwise land on the same line when formatting, which might lead to lockorder violation false-positives when compiled with the `backtrace` feature.
tnull
force-pushed
the
2024-09-rustfmt-util
branch
from
449a0d6
to
b909a7a
Compare
|
Rebased once more to resolve minor conflicts. |
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Dec 2, 2024
| ($last_type: expr, $type: expr, $fieldty: tt) => { | ||
| if let Some(t) = $last_type { | ||
| #[allow(unused_comparisons)] // Note that $type may be 0 making the following comparison always false | ||
| #[allow(unused_comparisons)] | ||
| // Note that $type may be 0 making the following comparison always false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should go above the allow, no?
| $crate::_get_varint_length_prefixed_tlv_length!( | ||
| $len, | ||
| $type, | ||
| $crate::util::ser::WithoutLength(&$field), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be pulled out into a var?
| $crate::_get_varint_length_prefixed_tlv_length!( | ||
| $len, | ||
| $type, | ||
| $field.map(|f| $encoding(f)), |
| #[allow(unused_comparisons)] // Note that $type may be 0 making the second comparison always false | ||
| let invalid_order = ($last_seen_type.is_none() || $last_seen_type.unwrap() < $type) && $typ.0 > $type; | ||
| #[allow(unused_comparisons)] | ||
| // Note that $type may be 0 making the second comparison always false |
| #[allow(unused_comparisons)] // Note that $type may be 0 making the second comparison always false | ||
| let invalid_order = ($last_seen_type.is_none() || $last_seen_type.unwrap() < $type) && $typ.0 > $type; | ||
| #[allow(unused_comparisons)] | ||
| // Note that $type may be 0 making the second comparison always false |
| ).unwrap()[..]) { | ||
| } else { panic!(); } | ||
| if let Err(DecodeError::InvalidValue) = tlv_reader( | ||
| &<Vec<u8>>::from_hex(concat!("0100", "0304deadbeef", "0208deadbeef1badbeef")).unwrap() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of these (across these tests) could be cleaned up a good bit if the vec+slice were pulled out or the tlv_reader return value were pulled out.
| do_test!(concat!("01", "08", "0100000000000000"), Some(72057594037927936), None, None, None); | ||
| do_test!(concat!("02", "08", "0000000000000226"), None, Some((0 << 30) | (0 << 5) | (550 << 0)), None, None); | ||
| do_test!( | ||
| concat!("01", "08", "0100000000000000"), |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn sign_counterparty_htlc_transaction(&self, htlc_tx: &Transaction, input: usize, amount: u64, per_commitment_point: &PublicKey, htlc: &HTLCOutputInCommitment, secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<secp256k1::All>) -> Result<Signature, ()> { | ||
| Ok(EcdsaChannelSigner::sign_holder_htlc_transaction( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be less verbose if we use self.inner.sign_holder_htlc_transaction?
Comment on lines
+59
to
+71
| weight_with_change += (VarInt(tx.output.len() as u64 + 1).size() | ||
| - VarInt(tx.output.len() as u64).size()) as i64 | ||
| * 4; | ||
| // When calculating weight, add two for the flag bytes | ||
| let change_value: i64 = (input_value - output_value).to_sat() as i64 - weight_with_change * feerate_sat_per_1000_weight as i64 / 1000; | ||
| let change_value: i64 = (input_value - output_value).to_sat() as i64 | ||
| - weight_with_change * feerate_sat_per_1000_weight as i64 / 1000; | ||
| if change_value >= dust_value.to_sat() as i64 { | ||
| change_output.value = Amount::from_sat(change_value as u64); | ||
| tx.output.push(change_output); | ||
| Ok(weight_with_change as u64) | ||
| } else if (input_value - output_value).to_sat() as i64 - (starting_weight as i64) * feerate_sat_per_1000_weight as i64 / 1000 < 0 { | ||
| } else if (input_value - output_value).to_sat() as i64 | ||
| - (starting_weight as i64) * feerate_sat_per_1000_weight as i64 / 1000 | ||
| < 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could probably use some new variables here.
Comment on lines
+224
to
+234
| version: Version::TWO, | ||
| lock_time: LockTime::ZERO, | ||
| input: Vec::new(), | ||
| output: vec![TxOut { script_pubkey: ScriptBuf::new(), value: Amount::from_sat(1000) }], | ||
| }; | ||
| assert!(maybe_add_change_output( | ||
| &mut tx, | ||
| Amount::from_sat(21_000_000_0000_0001), | ||
| 0, | ||
| 253, | ||
| ScriptBuf::new() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do these want new variables (similarly below)?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is PR 2/2, based on #3324.
The diff is a bit larger for this one, but AFAICT the changes look mostly reasonable (besides the oddity commented below).
FWIW, I had a look at currently open inflight PRs and the conflicts should be minimal if I'm not overlooking something.