-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 911
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
listpays rpc method could expose the payment_hash if the bolt11 is null (keysend) #3880
Comments
Fixes: ElementsProject#3880 Changelog-None
Also, I discovered my fault, in the past, there was a case that the bolt11 was null because these values did not store inside DB. In this case, the json response of the The code that built a different format if the bol11 was null (in 0.7.3) is reported below Lines 1248 to 1257 in 5bc2de8
With the actual code, I'm not able to see these code or a code that do this behavior, (maybe is my fault or maybe this retro compatibility was a break and for these reason, we see in my original post the bolt11 value null). In conclusion, the command For this reason, we could to have the possibility to pass a new value inside the I'm losing somethings? |
I think you're right, we should add the |
I implemented somethings, I can open a PR, but before I want make enough tests and make all changes inside the docs file. To make a good work |
fixed by #3888 |
Hi all.
During my work on introducing a new command
delpay
(good fist issue), I noted that after the evolution of pay plugin, the method RPClistpays
could return payment withoutid
, such as thebolt11
value null if is used keysend plugin.In cases of
bolt11
value null, I can use the commandlistsendpays
to have a result with more details. However, if I don't have a fault on my idea the commandlistpays
could be able to return thebolt11
in cases of payment with invoice andpayment_hash
in cases of payment without invoice.An example of output could be the json below
keysend payment
invoice payment
The content above make sense? or use a different json format inside the same rpc command and it is not correct?
reference implementation
vincenzopalazzo@7c13b0bvincenzopalazzo@b59f72b
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: