Rename InvoiceRequest::verify

Author: jkczyz

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

@@ -10717,7 +10717,7 @@ where
 						Ok(invoice_request) => invoice_request,
 						Err(()) => return ResponseInstruction::NoResponse,
 					},
-					None => match invoice_request.verify(expanded_key, secp_ctx) {
+					None => match invoice_request.verify_using_metadata(expanded_key, secp_ctx) {
 						Ok(invoice_request) => invoice_request,
 						Err(()) => {
 							let error = Bolt12SemanticError::InvalidMetadata;

lightning/src/offers/invoice.rs

@@ -1797,7 +1797,7 @@ mod tests {
 			.sign(payer_sign).unwrap();
 
 		match invoice_request
-			.verify(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).unwrap()
+			.verify_using_metadata(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).unwrap()
 			.respond_using_derived_keys_no_std(payment_paths(), payment_hash(), now())
 		{
 			Ok(_) => panic!("expected error"),

lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs

@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ pub struct InvoiceRequest {
 	signature: Signature,
 }
 
-/// An [`InvoiceRequest`] that has been verified by [`InvoiceRequest::verify`] or
+/// An [`InvoiceRequest`] that has been verified by [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_metadata`] or
 /// [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data`] and exposes different ways to respond depending
 /// on whether the signing keys were derived.
 #[derive(Clone, Debug)]
@@ -738,8 +738,9 @@ macro_rules! invoice_request_respond_with_explicit_signing_pubkey_methods { (
 	/// # Note
 	///
 	/// If the originating [`Offer`] was created using [`OfferBuilder::deriving_signing_pubkey`],
-	/// then first use [`InvoiceRequest::verify`] or [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data`]
-	/// and then [`VerifiedInvoiceRequest`] methods instead.
+	/// then first use [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_metadata`] or
+	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data`] and then [`VerifiedInvoiceRequest`] methods
+	/// instead.
 	///
 	/// [`Bolt12Invoice::created_at`]: crate::offers::invoice::Bolt12Invoice::created_at
 	/// [`OfferBuilder::deriving_signing_pubkey`]: crate::offers::offer::OfferBuilder::deriving_signing_pubkey
@@ -783,7 +784,7 @@ macro_rules! invoice_request_verify_method { ($self: ident, $self_type: ty) => {
 	/// [`Bolt12Invoice`] for the request if they could be extracted from the metadata.
 	///
 	/// [`Bolt12Invoice`]: crate::offers::invoice::Bolt12Invoice
-	pub fn verify<
+	pub fn verify_using_metadata<
 		#[cfg(not(c_bindings))]
 		T: secp256k1::Signing
 	>(
@@ -793,7 +794,8 @@ macro_rules! invoice_request_verify_method { ($self: ident, $self_type: ty) => {
 		#[cfg(c_bindings)]
 		secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<secp256k1::All>,
 	) -> Result<VerifiedInvoiceRequest, ()> {
-		let (offer_id, keys) = $self.contents.inner.offer.verify(&$self.bytes, key, secp_ctx)?;
+		let (offer_id, keys) =
+			$self.contents.inner.offer.verify_using_metadata(&$self.bytes, key, secp_ctx)?;
 		Ok(VerifiedInvoiceRequest {
 			offer_id,
 			#[cfg(not(c_bindings))]
@@ -2326,7 +2328,7 @@ mod tests {
 			.payer_note("0".repeat(PAYER_NOTE_LIMIT * 2))
 			.build().unwrap()
 			.sign(payer_sign).unwrap();
-		match invoice_request.verify(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx) {
+		match invoice_request.verify_using_metadata(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx) {
 			Ok(invoice_request) => {
 				let fields = invoice_request.fields();
 				assert_eq!(invoice_request.offer_id, offer.id());

lightning/src/offers/offer.rs

@@ -248,12 +248,12 @@ macro_rules! offer_derived_metadata_builder_methods { ($secp_context: ty) => {
 	/// `node_id` is used for the signing pubkey.
 	///
 	/// Also, sets the metadata when [`OfferBuilder::build`] is called such that it can be used by
-	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify`] to determine if the request was produced for the offer given an
-	/// [`ExpandedKey`]. However, if [`OfferBuilder::path`] is called, then the metadata will not be
-	/// set and must be included in each [`BlindedPath`] instead. In this case, use
-	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data`].
+	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_metadata`] to determine if the request was produced for the
+	/// offer given an [`ExpandedKey`]. However, if [`OfferBuilder::path`] is called, then the
+	/// metadata will not be set and must be included in each [`BlindedPath`] instead. In this case,
+	/// use [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data`].
 	///
-	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify`]: crate::offers::invoice_request::InvoiceRequest::verify
+	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_metadata`]: crate::offers::invoice_request::InvoiceRequest::verify_using_metadata
 	/// [`InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data`]: crate::offers::invoice_request::InvoiceRequest::verify_using_recipient_data
 	/// [`ExpandedKey`]: crate::ln::inbound_payment::ExpandedKey
 	pub fn deriving_signing_pubkey(
@@ -922,20 +922,20 @@ impl OfferContents {
 		self.signing_pubkey
 	}
 
-	pub(super) fn verify<T: secp256k1::Signing>(
+	pub(super) fn verify_using_metadata<T: secp256k1::Signing>(
 		&self, bytes: &[u8], key: &ExpandedKey, secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<T>
 	) -> Result<(OfferId, Option<Keypair>), ()> {
-		self.verify_using_metadata(bytes, self.metadata.as_ref(), key, secp_ctx)
+		self.verify(bytes, self.metadata.as_ref(), key, secp_ctx)
 	}
 
 	pub(super) fn verify_using_recipient_data<T: secp256k1::Signing>(
 		&self, bytes: &[u8], nonce: Nonce, key: &ExpandedKey, secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<T>
 	) -> Result<(OfferId, Option<Keypair>), ()> {
-		self.verify_using_metadata(bytes, Some(&Metadata::RecipientData(nonce)), key, secp_ctx)
+		self.verify(bytes, Some(&Metadata::RecipientData(nonce)), key, secp_ctx)
 	}
 
 	/// Verifies that the offer metadata was produced from the offer in the TLV stream.
-	fn verify_using_metadata<T: secp256k1::Signing>(
+	fn verify<T: secp256k1::Signing>(
 		&self, bytes: &[u8], metadata: Option<&Metadata>, key: &ExpandedKey, secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<T>
 	) -> Result<(OfferId, Option<Keypair>), ()> {
 		match metadata {
@@ -1311,7 +1311,7 @@ mod tests {
 		let invoice_request = offer.request_invoice(vec![1; 32], payer_pubkey()).unwrap()
 			.build().unwrap()
 			.sign(payer_sign).unwrap();
-		match invoice_request.verify(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx) {
+		match invoice_request.verify_using_metadata(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx) {
 			Ok(invoice_request) => assert_eq!(invoice_request.offer_id, offer.id()),
 			Err(_) => panic!("unexpected error"),
 		}
@@ -1335,7 +1335,7 @@ mod tests {
 			.request_invoice(vec![1; 32], payer_pubkey()).unwrap()
 			.build().unwrap()
 			.sign(payer_sign).unwrap();
-		assert!(invoice_request.verify(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).is_err());
+		assert!(invoice_request.verify_using_metadata(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).is_err());
 
 		// Fails verification with altered metadata
 		let mut tlv_stream = offer.as_tlv_stream();
@@ -1349,7 +1349,7 @@ mod tests {
 			.request_invoice(vec![1; 32], payer_pubkey()).unwrap()
 			.build().unwrap()
 			.sign(payer_sign).unwrap();
-		assert!(invoice_request.verify(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).is_err());
+		assert!(invoice_request.verify_using_metadata(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).is_err());
 	}
 
 	#[test]
@@ -1390,7 +1390,7 @@ mod tests {
 		let invoice_request = offer.request_invoice(vec![1; 32], payer_pubkey()).unwrap()
 			.build().unwrap()
 			.sign(payer_sign).unwrap();
-		assert!(invoice_request.verify(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).is_err());
+		assert!(invoice_request.verify_using_metadata(&expanded_key, &secp_ctx).is_err());
 
 		// Fails verification with altered offer field
 		let mut tlv_stream = offer.as_tlv_stream();