← Watch feed
Remove let binding for unit values in splice test
Public commit record
55/100 · Thin
What the developer wrote
Authored by Wilmer Paulino
Remove let binding for unit values in splice test
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Mentions testing or verification! No meaningful explanatory body
What changed, and why it matters
This commit is a minor cleanup inside a single test file. It removes unused `let _res =` variable bindings from a Rust unit test for Lightning channel splicing. The functions being called return the unit value `()`, so storing that result in a variable is unnecessary. There is no change to production code, no security fix, and no behavior change.
Recommended action
No security action needed. Treat as normal code hygiene/test cleanup.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff modifies lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs only. It replaces let _res = initiator_node.node.some_call(...) style bindings with direct expression statements initiator_node.node.some_call(...) where the return type is (). This is a lint/style cleanup (likely to silence compiler warnings about unnecessary let bindings for unit values). No runtime logic changes.
Changed components
lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rsInspect captured patch +11 / −23
diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs b/lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs
index 3f7d9f2..0a5a5a2 100644
--- a/lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs
+++ b/lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
};
// Initiate splice-in
- let _res = initiator_node
+ initiator_node
.node
.splice_channel(
&channel_id,
@@ -104,9 +104,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
assert_eq!(splice_init_msg.funding_pubkey.to_string(), expected_initiator_funding_key);
assert!(splice_init_msg.require_confirmed_inputs.is_none());
- let _res = acceptor_node
- .node
- .handle_splice_init(initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &splice_init_msg);
+ acceptor_node.node.handle_splice_init(initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &splice_init_msg);
// Extract the splice_ack message
let splice_ack_msg = get_event_msg!(
acceptor_node,
@@ -130,9 +128,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
assert!(channel.confirmations.unwrap() > 0);
}
- let _res = initiator_node
- .node
- .handle_splice_ack(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &splice_ack_msg);
+ initiator_node.node.handle_splice_ack(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &splice_ack_msg);
// still pre-splice channel: capacity not updated, channel usable, and funding tx set
assert_eq!(initiator_node.node.list_channels().len(), 1);
@@ -176,7 +172,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
assert_eq!(tx_add_input_msg.shared_input_txid, None);
}
- let _res = acceptor_node
+ acceptor_node
.node
.handle_tx_add_input(initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_add_input_msg);
let tx_complete_msg = get_event_msg!(
@@ -185,9 +181,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id()
);
- let _res = initiator_node
- .node
- .handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
+ initiator_node.node.handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
// Second input
let tx_add_input2_msg = get_event_msg!(
&initiator_node,
@@ -211,7 +205,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
);
}
- let _res = acceptor_node
+ acceptor_node
.node
.handle_tx_add_input(initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_add_input2_msg);
let tx_complete_msg = get_event_msg!(
@@ -220,9 +214,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id()
);
- let _res = initiator_node
- .node
- .handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
+ initiator_node.node.handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
// TxAddOutput for the change output
let tx_add_output_msg = get_event_msg!(
@@ -238,7 +230,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
assert_eq!(tx_add_output_msg.sats, 13979); // extra_splice_funding_input_sats - splice_in_sats
}
- let _res = acceptor_node
+ acceptor_node
.node
.handle_tx_add_output(initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_add_output_msg);
let tx_complete_msg = get_event_msg!(
@@ -247,9 +239,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id()
);
- let _res = initiator_node
- .node
- .handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
+ initiator_node.node.handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
// TxAddOutput for the splice funding
let tx_add_output2_msg = get_event_msg!(
&initiator_node,
@@ -264,7 +254,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
assert_eq!(tx_add_output2_msg.sats, post_splice_channel_value);
}
- let _res = acceptor_node
+ acceptor_node
.node
.handle_tx_add_output(initiator_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_add_output2_msg);
let _tx_complete_msg = get_event_msg!(
@@ -274,9 +264,7 @@ fn test_v1_splice_in() {
);
// TODO(splicing) This is the last tx_complete, which triggers the commitment flow, which is not yet fully implemented
- let _res = initiator_node
- .node
- .handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
+ initiator_node.node.handle_tx_complete(acceptor_node.node.get_our_node_id(), &tx_complete_msg);
let events = initiator_node.node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
match events[0] {
Risk score
Our methodology →Why this scored 15/100
Human-validated context
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
No validated notes yet.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.