Skip to content

Conversation

IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

@IanButterworth IanButterworth commented Aug 27, 2025

Alternative to #1115

See discussion around #1115 (comment)

Closes #838
Closes #830
Closes #1115

Developed with Claude

@IanButterworth IanButterworth marked this pull request as ready for review August 27, 2025 15:46
IanButterworth and others added 2 commits August 27, 2025 11:56
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

@MilesCranmer would you mind reviewing this. Thanks

@IanButterworth IanButterworth changed the title Expand link to handle aliases Expand link to handle aliases. DRY tests mechanics. Sep 8, 2025
@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

Resolved my comments as I put them into #1242.

By the way, will this mess up any of the existing serialized files at all? I'm assuming no but I really don't have a clear enough understanding for the internals to say.

@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

From a design perspective I'm a little worried by how LinkedChannel and AliasChannel seem to be so different. e.g., LinkedChannel looks to be creating shell scripts, whereas AliasChannel is using runtime resolution. I don't see a strong reason for this split. I think they should use a similar mechanism.

@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

MilesCranmer commented Sep 8, 2025

To be honest I think the alias solution is better than the existing LinkedChannel solution. The LinkedChannel solution seems to rely on generating shell scripts (?) which seems kinda fragile.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

@MilesCranmer

will this mess up any of the existing serialized files at all?

Maybe if people downgrade after using this new feature? I don't think we need to worry about that, we can try it out in the prerelease.

I think your other comment could be a follow on consideration?

Are you happy to approve this so we can move ahead?

@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

I think it's probably good to go. I haven't messed around with it locally though which is something I'd like to try. Have you given it some testing in your terminal at all? I think we should try to break things a little

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

IanButterworth commented Sep 13, 2025

We had a bug and a test gap for a general juliaup update when an alias is present. Fixed. I think we're good to go.

@IanButterworth IanButterworth merged commit 1a8243f into main Sep 13, 2025
28 checks passed
@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

@IanButterworth FYI I think both of my PRs #1241 and #1242 got squashed into a single commit without me included as coauthor

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

Odd. Squash merges usually retain authorship.

@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

I think if you do a <ctrl-A> + <del> inside the extended commit message it might have deleted the Co-authored-by: trailer

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

I didn't edit it. Maybe the GitHub default changed it.

@MilesCranmer
Copy link
Member

Did you use some CLI to merge it maybe? The website UI still has the same defaults as before:
image

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member Author

Nope the website. I have an enhanced GitHub chrome extension, it could be that. I'll look when at my computer.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support short channel matching
2 participants