Skip to content

Conversation

@Harshdev098
Copy link

Have added in_memory store for testing purpose.
We can edit config file to use specific store either postgresql or memory

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Oct 12, 2025

👋 Thanks for assigning @tnull 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.

@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

Harshdev098 commented Oct 12, 2025

Hey @tnull @tankyleo Can you please review it

@tnull tnull self-requested a review October 13, 2025 07:10
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for looking into this!

Generally goes into the right direction, but we def. need to avoid re-allocating everything on every operation.

@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 force-pushed the memory_store branch 2 times, most recently from 4980a75 to 25d57e3 Compare October 14, 2025 06:16
@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 requested a review from tnull October 14, 2025 06:17
@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

@tnull Have done the required changes

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks much better, but I think we still need to handle global_version properly, even if we're currently not using it client-side.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @tnull @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @tnull @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One comment, will take another look once @tankyleo also had a chance to do a review round here.

@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

@tankyleo Can you please review it!

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 4th Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Copy link
Contributor

@tankyleo tankyleo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for the delay !

@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

@tankyleo Have done with the required changes! Can you please review it

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When testing integration with LDK Node locally I found that the tests are currently failing. I now opened #62 to add LDK Node integration tests to our CI here. It would be great if that could land first, and we could also add a CI job for the in-memory store as part of this PR then, ensuring the implementation actually works as expected.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Oct 31, 2025

@Harshdev098 Please rebase now that #62 landed to make use of the new CI checks here.

@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

Hey @tnull @tankyleo I have added the CI Job for the tests and also have updated the main function to accept in-memory flag to override the config file. Can you please review it!

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @tnull @tankyleo I have added the CI Job for the tests and also have updated the main function to accept in-memory flag to override the config file. Can you please review it!

Thanks, added some comments. Please also make sure that the LDK Node CI is run against the in-memory store.

@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 force-pushed the memory_store branch 4 times, most recently from 2b64791 to 81ca808 Compare November 4, 2025 03:42
@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 requested a review from tnull November 4, 2025 03:45
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please also make sure that the LDK Node CI is run against the in-memory store.

AFAICT this is still missing the part that runs the LDK Node integration test against the in-memory store to check functionality in a realistic setting?

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 5th Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 force-pushed the memory_store branch 2 times, most recently from 84cfed6 to 939559f Compare November 5, 2025 03:34
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, and now you're hitting the errors that I originally found when running LDK Node against the in-memory store. Very likely, they are due to the in-memory implementation behaving in an unexpected manner. We need to fix this before this PR can get merged. Please take a look, but let me know if you end up getting stuck or need some assistance figuring this out.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 6th Reminder

Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 force-pushed the memory_store branch 4 times, most recently from 51a791d to 0168750 Compare November 8, 2025 05:48
@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

Hey @tnull Have updated the code and the unit test are passing against the ldk node tests but didn't understand what is the cause of integration failures

@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 force-pushed the memory_store branch 3 times, most recently from 92bd1e3 to bd3eca4 Compare November 9, 2025 03:41
@Harshdev098
Copy link
Author

Hey @tnull @tankyleo Have tested it locally, the test are working correctly now, don't know why its stuck in CI! Can you please review it

@Harshdev098 Harshdev098 requested a review from tnull November 9, 2025 03:53
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