doc: fix listnodes schema, doc. #4750
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Seems to be missing a |
niftynei
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2021
doc/lightning-listnodes.7.md
Outdated
| - **funding_weight** (u32): the onchain weight you'll have to pay for a lease | ||
| - **channel_fee_max_base_msat** (msat): the maximum base routing fee this node will charge during the lease | ||
| - **channel_fee_max_proportional_thousandths** (msat): the maximum proportional routing fee this node will charge during the lease (in thousandths, not millionths like channel_update) | ||
| - **compact_least** (hex, optional): the lease as represented in the node_announcement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| - **compact_least** (hex, optional): the lease as represented in the node_announcement | |
| - **compact_lease** (hex, optional): the lease as represented in the node_announcement |
doc/schemas/listnodes.schema.json
Outdated
| "type": "msat", | ||
| "description": "the maximum proportional routing fee this node will charge during the lease (in thousandths, not millionths like channel_update)" | ||
| }, | ||
| "compact_least": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| "compact_least": { | |
| "compact_lease": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gah, this was clearly untested... :(
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
listnodes-schema
branch
from
8fe650b
to
91eee17
Compare
Shows the dangers of "additionalProperties": true. We didn't have an else clause, so our incorrect (and, with DF, incomplete!) schema was accepted. I despair of getting anyone else to write a decent schema with these semantics :( Changelog-Fixed: doc: listnodes fields now correctly documented. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
rustyrussell
force-pushed
the
listnodes-schema
branch
from
91eee17
to
fe5714a
Compare
|
Regenerated the docs since it was failing with a different source hash. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Shows the dangers of "additionalProperties": true. We didn't have an else
clause, so our incorrect (and, with DF, incomplete!) schema was accepted.
I despair of getting anyone else to write a decent schema with these
semantics :(
Changelog-Fixed: doc: listnodes fields now correctly documented.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell rusty@rustcorp.com.au