`litd -V` shows confusing version string

[ZZiigguurraatt]

If I run litd -V I get

litd version 0.18.0-beta commit=lightning-terminal-v0.13.993-experimental

which leads me confused if it is litd version 0.18.0-beta or v0.13.993-experimental.

Viktor edit:
The version string therefore first shows the integrated lnd version, followed by the git tag as the commit.
It would be more suitable if the string included litd's version, and not lnd's.

[ViktorTigerstrom]

If I run litcli getinfo I get:

"version": "0.13.993-experimental commit=v0.13.993-experimental"

We actually did update this in later releases of litd, so if you update litd to a newer version, the output of the litcli getinfo should hopefully be more descriptive. In your case above though, the repeated v0.13.993-experimental is due to it both being the semantic version of the release as well as the git tag of the commit that the release is based on, so that was intended behaviour. Let us know if you have feedback on the output of litcli getinfo in a new release though!

We could potentially look into if we can solve that litd -V shows the lnd version and not the litd though, but not fully sure if we can resolve that without more research. If you run litcli --version on a newer release, that should show litd's version though.

So I think the only somewhat unexpected behaviour currently is that litd -V shows lnd's version, and not litd's. I'll therefore update the issue to only focus on that if that's ok?

[ZZiigguurraatt]

Let us know if you have feedback on the output of litcli getinfo in a new release though!

This does look better.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

In your case above though, the repeated v0.13.993-experimental is due to it both being the semantic version of the release as well as the git tag of the commit that the release is based on, so that was intended behaviour.

I think this case is probably okay.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

If you run litcli --version on a newer release, that should show litd's version though.

That works, but I think that litcli should not be required and litd should do it.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

We could potentially look into if we can solve that litd -V shows the lnd version and not the litd though, but not fully sure if we can resolve that without more research.

Yes, I think this is the main issue.

So I think the only somewhat unexpected behaviour currently is that litd -V shows lnd's version, and not litd's. I'll therefore update the issue to only focus on that if that's ok?

Yes.

[ViktorTigerstrom]

Ok, thanks. I edited the issue title + description to only focus on the litd -V issue.

[ellemouton]

@ViktorTigerstrom, can i assign this to you as a low prio item?