We write both when coming from outside, as well as when compacting, so we
extract the write functionality to use it in both cases.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This makes the exposed interface much smaller, cleaner and will allow us to just
replay gossip messages from the broadcast.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Two cases:
1. Node no longer has any public channels: remove node_announcement.
2. Node's node_announcement now preceeds all the channel_announcements:
move node_announcement to the end.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This lets detect if a node announce preceeds a channel announce once we
delete the node announcement.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We *accept* a node_announce if we have a channel_announce, but we
can't queue it until we queue the channel_announce, which we only do
once we have recieved a channel_update.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Since we currently only (ab)use it to send everything, we need a way to
generate boutique queries for testing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We have a function called 'wake_pkt_out' which is really 'start
gossiping', so rename it to 'wake_gossip_out'.
In addition, it's fired both on a timer, and in response to our first
gossip_timestamp_filter, which leads to very confusing (though,
technically, not incorrect) behavior.
Keep a single timer at all times, which now doubles as the flag to
indicating we're syncing right now. Set it once we're done syncing
gossip.
Technically this means we got from once-every-60-seconds to
quiet-for-60-seconds-between-gossip, but that's OK.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
And initialize filter (to "never") when we negotiated LOCAL_GOSSIP_QUERIES,
and send initial filter message.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is kind of orthogonal to the other changes, but makes sense: if we
would instantly or never prune the message, don't accept it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We use the same system as for gossip: we trickle out replies when we're
otherwise idle.
As we trickle out replies to query_short_channel_ids, we remember the
pubkeys of nodes we mention. At the end, we sort and uniquify, and
then send any node_announcements we have for those.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We use the same system as for gossip: we trickle out replies when we're
otherwise idle.
This is minimal infrastructure: we don't actually process the
query_short_channel_ids message yet, nor do we append node
announcements.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In general, we need to only publish node announcements after
publishing channel announcements, though we can accept node
announcements as soon as we see channel announcements. So we keep a
flag for those node_announcement which haven't been broadcast yet.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
handle_pending_cannouncement might not actually add the announcment,
as it could be waiting for a channel_update. We need to wait for
the actual announcement before considering announcing our node.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We generate new ones anyway; removing this code changes fixes coming
up which now only need to change one place.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We don't have any connection yet, so how could they be active? Disable both
sides to avoid trying to route through them or telling others to use them as
`contact_points` in invoices.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
We're telling gossipd about disconnections anyway, so let's just use that signal
to disable both sides of the channel.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This was failing some of our integration tests, i.e., the ones closing a channel
and not waiting for sigexchange. The remote node would often not be quick enough
to send us its disabling channel_update, and hence we'd still remember the
incoming direction. That could then be sent out as part of an invoice, and fail
subsequently. So just set both directions to be disabled and let the onchain
spend clean up once it happens.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This resolves the problem where both channeld and gossipd can generate
updates, and they can have the same timestamp. gossipd is always able
to generate them, so can ensure timestamp moves forward.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We erroneously create updates with the same timestamps when tests run
quickly, and the second one is ignored.
We've already noted that this should be fixed: gossipd should generate
all the updates, as it already has to do the case where channeld
crashed, for example. But that's a bigger change.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@cdecker points out that in test_forward, where we manually create a route,
we get an error back which contains an update for an unknown channel.
We should still note this, but it's not an error for testing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is something which generally shouldn't happen, but we didn't
notice it previously.
We ignore this warning in the case where a channel was deleted: this
happens because one side can send an update while the other notices
that the channel is closed.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Note: this will break the gossip_store if they have current channels,
but it will fail to parse and be discarded.
Have local_add_channel do just that: the update is logically separate
and can be sent separately.
This removes the ugly 'bool add_to_store' flag.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Christian Decker
Rusty Russell
practicalswift