The option "brasilian" is inaccurate since we brazilians do speak Portuguese.
We don't consider "brasilian" as a language, so I believe this change I've made is a more accurate option for this public.
payto_e.lightning_invoice has to be set after the payment field is set
to the node pub key, because check_text has the side effect of resetting
the payto_e.lightning_invoice
When changing e.g. from mBTC to BTC, the history list was only
partially updated: the displayed amounts got updated but the
displayed unit did not, so incorrect information was shown.
Previously, msat precision was leaking through format_satoshis if the
user's base unit was set to "sat". This was a bug.
Some features of format_satoshis did not work well with such values, such
as the "whitespaces" param.
Old code:
>>> util.format_satoshis(Decimal('45831275.748'), decimal_point=2)
'458312.76'
>>> util.format_satoshis(Decimal('45831275.748'), decimal_point=0)
'45831275.748'
New code:
>>> util.format_satoshis(Decimal('45831275.748'), decimal_point=2)
'458312.76'
>>> util.format_satoshis(Decimal('45831275.748'), decimal_point=0)
'45831276.'
Previously if there was a chain of exceptions, we were only
sending the traceback for the final exception.
E.g.
try:
raise ExcOne("asdasd")
except ExcOne() as e:
raise ExcTwo("qweqwe") from e
^ we would lose all info about ExcOne, including potentially many lines of trace
related: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/7390
```
20210706T091826.513398Z | ERROR | __main__ | daemon.run_gui errored
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "run_electrum", line 407, in handle_cmd
File "electrum\daemon.py", line 584, in run_gui
File "electrum\gui\qt\__init__.py", line 414, in main
File "electrum\gui\qt\__init__.py", line 291, in wrapper
File "electrum\gui\qt\__init__.py", line 316, in start_new_window
File "electrum\gui\qt\__init__.py", line 361, in _start_wizard_to_select_or_create_wallet
File "electrum\wallet_db.py", line 73, in __init__
File "electrum\wallet_db.py", line 106, in load_data
File "electrum\util.py", line 412, in <lambda>
File "electrum\util.py", line 408, in do_profile
File "electrum\wallet_db.py", line 175, in upgrade
File "electrum\wallet_db.py", line 540, in _convert_version_24
ValueError: too many values to unpack (expected 2)
```
Fixes: after adding a payment request, if the process was killed,
the payreq might get lost. In case of using the GUI, neither the
callee nor the caller called wallet.save_db().
Unclear where wallet.save_db() should be called...
Now each method tries to persist their changes by default,
but as an optimisation, the caller can pass write_to_disk=False
e.g. when calling multiple such methods and then call wallet.save_db() itself.
If we had partial writes, which would either rm the need for wallet.save_db()
or at least make it cheaper, this code might get simpler...
related: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/6435
related: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/4823
see code comment.
While the balance in the channels might shift before the sender tries to
pay the invoice, as we are not a forwarding node, that seems unlikely to matter.
It is the last Trampoline Forwarder that should be checked, not the
first one.
Consider route (of Trampolines only):
Alice-electrum -> T_ACINQ -> T_Hodlister -> Bob-electrum
Even if Bob has a transport open with ACINQ or even if Bob has a channel open with ACINQ,
Alice can safely use end-to-end trampoline for this route: ACINQ will not know who
the recipient is, so they will not try to do pay-to-open (and hold up the payment for minutes...).
related: https://github.com/ACINQ/lightning-kmp/pull/237
- better error handling: previously we stopped all attempts on any of
TRAMPOLINE_EXPIRY_TOO_SOON, UNKNOWN_NEXT_PEER, TEMPORARY_NODE_FAILURE.
Instead we should retry (but see code comments).
- previously payments failed if ALL of the following criteria applied:
- sender is paying via trampoline, but not via the ACINQ node (which is
special cased)
- receiver only has private channels and has put r_tags into invoice, along
with setting the trampoline feature bit in the invoice, however the receiver
is not connected to any trampoline forwarders directly
The sender would then assume that the private routing hints in the invoice
correspond to trampoline forwarders.
- also, previously if both the sender and the recipient used trampoline and
they shared a trampoline forwarder (that they were both connected to), the
private channels the recipient had (with nodes other than the shared TF)
would never be attempted.
Caio Costa
SomberNight
Siddhant Chawla
djboi
nyanpasu64
bitromortac
wakiyamap
MrNaif2018
MrNaif2018
BamaHodl