fix: workaround for macOS AF_UNIX path error

[king-11]

symlink the socket to a tempfile which has a shorter path

Important

25.02 FREEZE JANUARY 31ST: Non-bugfix PRs not ready by this date will wait for 25.05.

Checklist

Before submitting the PR, ensure the following tasks are completed. If an item is not applicable to your PR, please mark it as checked:

• The changelog has been updated in the relevant commit(s) according to the guidelines.
• Tests have been added or modified to reflect the changes.
• Documentation has been reviewed and updated as needed.
• Related issues have been listed and linked, including any that this PR closes.

[king-11]

I think its possible to do the same thing on linux too shall we merge both the workarounds?

[vincenzopalazzo]

Does this happen when running the integration tests? Can we also post the stack trace that you are receiving in the commit body?

P.S: probably you want to remove also the merge commit and use the git rebase upstrea/master for a clean git history

[king-11]

P.S: probably you want to remove also the merge commit and use the git rebase upstrea/master for a clean git history

yeah the this update branch button ruined the history will rebase

Also shared the trace in discord

    @pytest.mark.openchannel('v1')
    @pytest.mark.openchannel('v2')
    def test_pay(node_factory):
>       l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2)
...
FAILED tests/test_pay.py::test_pay - OSError: AF_UNIX path too lon

[vincenzopalazzo]

cool, would be good to have the stackstrace inside the commit body, just git commit --amend

    @pytest.mark.openchannel('v1')
    @pytest.mark.openchannel('v2')
    def test_pay(node_factory):
>       l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2)
...
FAILED tests/test_pay.py::test_pay - OSError: AF_UNIX path too lon

This will help us to remember in 20 years why this commit was introduced

[king-11]

done

[king-11]

@vincenzopalazzo any thoughts about merging both unix and mac workarounds? I think temp directory should work in both the cases.

[vincenzopalazzo]

I think its possible to do the same thing on linux too shall we merge both the workarounds?

Not sure if we are having any problem on linux? If not, it is better to wait to find a problem before merging workarounds that required two pages of comments to remember why we are doing it, or I am missing something?

[king-11]

Sounds good @vincenzopalazzo then we this one is good for merge.

[rustyrussell]

Ack a5fd34d