Make litd compile with lnd master dependency set#1259
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request resolves compilation issues with Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates dependencies to ensure litd compiles against lnd master. The changes primarily involve version bumps in go.mod and go.sum, including several replace directives to handle breaking API changes in upstream dependencies. Additionally, a refactoring in the perms package introduces a new helper function, setFieldIfPresent, to make mock configurations more resilient to fields being removed from upstream structs.
My review focuses on the new helper function. While the current implementation is fit for its purpose in this PR, I've suggested a small improvement to make it more robust for future use cases by handling nil values more generally.
03ed9ba to
f7d4141
Compare
|
Hey, @Roasbeef, @guggero, @ellemouton, could you please review? |
|
@sergey3bv, remember to re-request review from reviewers when ready |
Addressing #1255