itest: taproot assets forwarding history

[darioAnongba]

Adds ForwardingHistory verification in the custom_channels itests.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @darioAnongba, 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 updates the project's Go environment and dependencies to ensure compatibility and leverage the latest features and fixes. Crucially, it enhances the robustness of Taproot Assets integration tests by adding comprehensive verification for forwarding history events, ensuring that asset transfers are correctly recorded and retrievable within the system.

Highlights

• Dependency Updates: The Go language version has been updated from 1.24.9 to 1.24.11. Several Go module dependencies, including btcec/v2, lightning-node-connect components, lnd, sqldb, aperture, and neutrino/cache, have been updated to their latest versions, along with corresponding go.sum changes.
• New Test Utility Function: A new helper function waitForForwardingEvent has been added to itest/assets_test.go. This function simplifies the process of waiting for and matching specific rfqrpc.ForwardingEvent instances in integration tests.
• Taproot Assets Forwarding History Verification: Integration tests for custom channels (itest/litd_custom_channels_test.go) now include verification of ForwardingHistory. This involves creating a ForwardingHistoryRequest and asserting various properties of the returned ForwardingEvent to ensure correct tracking of asset transfers.

🧠 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 Assist

The 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 /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

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 .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

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.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds verification for Taproot Asset forwarding history in the integration tests. A new helper function waitForForwardingEvent is introduced to poll for forwarding events.

The overall approach is good, but I've found a potential issue in the implementation of the new test logic. The helper function and its usage currently only account for single forwarding events, which may not be sufficient for multi-part payments (MPP). This could lead to incomplete verification in tests. I've left detailed comments with suggestions on how to make the test more robust to handle MPP scenarios.