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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Complete receive payjoin feature groundwork #18
Complete receive payjoin feature groundwork #18
Changes from all commits
97f0aa2
93cb800
cb78ccb
66e1330
6ce8cfb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Is there any value putting params here as a field?
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.
If this configuration is going to hold this data then yes, I think it makes sense to be part of this. The idea of a builder to expose this interface in an accessible way rather than expose
optional_parameters::Params
as pub makes sense to me.I'm starting to think of this
Configuration
struct more as asender::RequestBuilder
that can turn into a(Request, Context)
when you callfrom_psbt_and_uri
. Maybe the signature for that method should beinstead of on the manually-validated
Uri<PayJoinParams>
how it is now:pj_url.create_pj_request(psbt, pj_params: Configuration) -> Result<(Request, Context)>
.Then create_pj_request could validate the endpoint
check_pj_supported()
during that call instead of requiring it be done by hand before the call, too.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.
The builder could have
.psbt()
,pj_uri()
,.build()
methods in addition to the existing ones like.non_incentivizing()
to more closely resemble a builder pattern, tooThere 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, builder pattern kinda makes sense. We might need more than one to implement type state, since both URI and PSBT are mandatory. Alternatively we could just accept both in a single method.