Skip to content

chore: prepare 0.8.0-rc11.1 - #208

Closed
ovitrif wants to merge 1 commit into
release/0.8.0-rc11from
chore/0.8.0-rc11.1
Closed

ovitrif wants to merge 1 commit into
release/0.8.0-rc11from
chore/0.8.0-rc11.1

Conversation

@ovitrif

@ovitrif ovitrif commented Nov 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Refs: #207

Prepares 0.8.0-rc11.1 for the Bitkit 3.1.1 patch line. v3.1.0 ships 0.8.0-rc11; this branch adds only the LDK 0.2.8 crates on top of it, so 3.1.1 gets the LDK update without the rc12–rc14 changes. Master stays on 0.8.0-rc15 for 3.2.0.

Description

  • lightning 0.2.3 → 0.2.8, lightning-types 0.3.2 → 0.3.5 and lightning-invoice 0.34.1 → 0.34.2 in Cargo.lock, the same lock change as chore: prepare 0.8.0-rc15 #207. boltz-client is the only crate that depends on them.
  • Version 0.8.0-rc11.1 in Cargo.toml, Cargo.lock, Package.swift and bindings/android/gradle.properties, plus the iOS checksum in Package.swift.
  • One changelog line.

No API change: the regenerated Swift bindings are byte-identical to v0.8.0-rc11.

This PR targets release/0.8.0-rc11, cut at the v0.8.0-rc11 tag (22e0acc).

The iOS archive was built with ./build_ios.sh on Rust 1.91.1 and Xcode 27.0. It is 86,783,449 bytes, SHA-256 8414875259de52a50d8f7e3b8f638cbd31d1938d650bb1e257596a29265706f2, matching Package.swift. Android coordinates are com.synonym:bitkit-core-android:0.8.0-rc11.1.

Release steps after approval

  1. Push a signed annotated tag v0.8.0-rc11.1 on the approved head and publish it as a prerelease with the preserved BitkitCore.xcframework.zip, so v0.8.0-rc15 stays the latest release. Publishing runs gradle-publish.yml, which builds and publishes the Android package.
  2. Check that the published zip's checksum matches Package.swift and that the Android package resolves.
  3. Merge this PR with a merge commit.

QA Notes

  • cargo metadata --locked resolves the lock as committed.
  • ./build_ios.sh: passed. The regenerated Swift interface files are identical to v0.8.0-rc11's.
  • swift package compute-checksum on the archive matches Package.swift.
  • cargo test modules::boltz (32 passed) and modules::scanner (19 passed).

Update lightning to 0.2.8, lightning-types to 0.3.5 and lightning-invoice to 0.34.2 on top of v0.8.0-rc11.
@ovitrif ovitrif self-assigned this Nov 11, 2026
@ovitrif
ovitrif requested review from a team, ben-kaufman and coreyphillips and removed request for a team November 11, 2026 19:59
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Nov 11, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Codex Review Summary: ✅ Completed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-11-11T20:15:48.888397Z 89f3cee PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@talosmachina talosmachina left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No findings. Moves lightning to 0.2.8, lightning-types to 0.3.5 and lightning-invoice to 0.34.2 in the lock on top of v0.8.0-rc11, and bumps the version to 0.8.0-rc11.1 across the three manifests. Reviewed 89f3cee, full tier (lock file change).

What I checked, and 3 candidates I ruled out

Base: release/0.8.0-rc11 is 22e0acc, the commit v0.8.0-rc11 points at, so the diff is the whole delta for the patch line.
Lock integrity: the three new checksums match the crates.io index entries for lightning 0.2.8, lightning-types 0.3.5 and lightning-invoice 0.34.2, none yanked. Every non-optional requirement of the new lightning (lightning-macros ^0.2.1, dnssec-prover ^0.6, hashbrown ^0.13, possiblyrandom ^0.2, lightning-types ^0.3.5, bech32 ^0.11) resolves to an entry already in the lock, so no new crate enters the graph.
Scope: boltz-client 0.4.1 is the only lock entry that depends on lightning; the crate's own lightning-invoice = "0.32.0" in Cargo.toml is a separate entry and untouched.
Version sync: Cargo.toml, Package.swift (tag) and bindings/android/gradle.properties all read 0.8.0-rc11.1; no other tracked file carries the old version outside the changelog and lock.
CI at review time: manifest and SwiftPM checks green; Android Bindgen, iOS Bindgen and usdt-tests still pending.
Build: build skipped: the PR-run gate could not read the author's permission on this repo and fails closed, so the review is static. The iOS checksum in Package.swift was not recomputed here; it can only be checked against the release asset once it is uploaded, which is step 2 of the release plan.

Ruled out

  • Pre-release ordering: 0.8.0-rc11.1 sorts after 0.8.0-rc11 and before 0.8.0-rc12 under SemVer (identifiers rc11 then 1), so a consumer pinning the rc11 line does not jump to master's releases.
  • Android publish from the tag: gradle-publish.yml checks out release.tag_name and passes the version from it, so it builds this branch's code, not the default branch.
  • Binding drift: no Rust source or UniFFI export changed, so there is nothing for the generated bindings to pick up.

Merge confidence: 4/5, the lock change was not built or tested here and three CI jobs were still pending.

@coreyphillips coreyphillips left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Two independent reviews, nothing blocking a merge.

@ovitrif

ovitrif commented Nov 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Closing unmerged: in bitkit-core the LDK 0.2.8 crates reach only boltz-client, and the app gets its LDK fixes through ldk-node 0.7.0-rc.80, so Bitkit 3.1.1 keeps bitkit-core 0.8.0-rc11. Master stays on 0.8.0-rc15 for 3.2.0.

@ovitrif ovitrif closed this Nov 11, 2026
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.

3 participants