invoice: swap RouteHop for RouteHint

[valentinewallace]

To prevent naming conflicts in bindings

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #887 (11641fe) into main (52f1d45) will increase coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 96.38%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #887      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.21%   90.31%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          55       57       +2     
  Lines       29091    29225     +134     
==========================================
+ Hits        26245    26394     +149     
+ Misses       2846     2831      -15     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lightning-invoice/src/lib.rs	84.35% <95.12%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
lightning-invoice/src/de.rs	81.35% <96.55%> (+0.35%)	⬆️
lightning-invoice/src/ser.rs	83.76% <100.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
lightning/src/routing/router.rs	96.21% <100.00%> (+0.42%)	⬆️
lightning/src/util/zbase32.rs	96.55% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/message_signing.rs	93.10% <0.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs	97.07% <0.00%> (+0.24%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 52f1d45...11641fe. Read the comment docs.

[TheBlueMatt]

Looks good at first glance.

[TheBlueMatt]

Hmm, I wonder if it actually makes sense to further refactor a bit - a RouteHint isn't really itself a hint, but one hop in a potentially-but-rarely-larger RouteHint. The lightning_invoice::Route would then be a RouteHint making lightning::routing::router::RouteHint a RouteHintHop (though presumably we'd put both types in lightning::routing::router and use them consistently).

[valentinewallace]

Hmm, I wonder if it actually makes sense to further refactor a bit - a RouteHint isn't really itself a hint, but one hop in a potentially-but-rarely-larger RouteHint. The lightning_invoice::Route would then be a RouteHint making lightning::routing::router::RouteHint a RouteHintHop (though presumably we'd put both types in lightning::routing::router and use them consistently).

Hum so moving the invoice crate's RouteHint (previously named Route) is a little involved. OK to put off?

[TheBlueMatt]

Hum so moving the invoice crate's RouteHint (previously named Route) is a little involved. OK to put off?

Hmm, up to you, is the issue the trait implementations? It should still be pretty practical, but its no huge rush.

Otherwise looks good.