Log the errors before we return them from ChannelManager::do_accept_inbound_channel

[Jossec101]

This closes #2754

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (15b7f66) 88.45% compared to head (dbe69ba) 88.42%.
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	76.19%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2807      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.45%   88.42%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         114      114              
  Lines       91814    91962     +148     
  Branches    91814    91962     +148     
==========================================
+ Hits        81218    81313      +95     
- Misses       8103     8136      +33     
- Partials     2493     2513      +20     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[TheBlueMatt]

When you address the above comment, feel free to squash, but please update the commit message to be no longer than ~70 chars in the title, and follow it with a small body explaining why we're doing this and what we're doing, with each line wrapped to no longer than ~70 chars.

[Jossec101]

I've added WithContext let me know if you want me to rebase or something. I'm not sure if the temporary_channel_id should be used for ChannelId parameter of from(logger: &'a L, peer_id: Option<PublicKey>, channel_id: Option<ChannelId>)

EDIT: Squash ✅

[shaavan]

The code looks great!
However we can still improve the commit subject a little.
Using an imperative tone in the subject is considered to be the best practice.

Also, you can refer to this, which will help you educate yourself on best practices in commit writing.

[TheBlueMatt]

Indeed, the commit message could include a bit more detail, but its probably not worth delaying the PR further to wait on it, its fine enough :)

There's also no need to wait on a third reviewer here, this doesn't change the logic flow anywhere or the API, only adds logging.