Skip to content

Correct async lightning-background-processor exit check docs #1843

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2022
Merged

Correct async lightning-background-processor exit check docs #1843

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 6 additions & 6 deletions lightning-background-processor/src/lib.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -358,8 +358,8 @@ macro_rules! define_run_body {
/// Processes background events in a future.
///
/// `sleeper` should return a future which completes in the given amount of time and returns a
/// boolean indicating whether the background processing should continue. Once `sleeper` returns a
/// future which outputs false, the loop will exit and this function's future will complete.
/// boolean indicating whether the background processing should exit. Once `sleeper` returns a
/// future which outputs true, the loop will exit and this function's future will complete.
///
/// See [`BackgroundProcessor::start`] for information on which actions this handles.
#[cfg(feature = "futures")]
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -411,13 +411,13 @@ where
UMH::Target: 'static + CustomMessageHandler,
PS::Target: 'static + Persister<'a, Signer, CW, T, K, F, L, SC>,
{
let mut should_continue = true;
let mut should_break = true;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps we should be explicit and use an enum to avoid confusion.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure we're gonna have this bug twice :). As with this case, I think a user who implements it wrong should see pretty quick that its wrong, though I agree in the future we may consider doing enums more aggressively rather than bools.

define_run_body!(persister, event_handler, chain_monitor, channel_manager,
gossip_sync, peer_manager, logger, scorer, should_continue, {
gossip_sync, peer_manager, logger, scorer, should_break, {
select_biased! {
_ = channel_manager.get_persistable_update_future().fuse() => true,
cont = sleeper(Duration::from_millis(100)).fuse() => {
should_continue = cont;
exit = sleeper(Duration::from_millis(100)).fuse() => {
should_break = exit;
false
}
}
Expand Down