This avoids overwriting the ones in git, and generally makes things neater.
We have convenience headers wire/peer_wire.h and wire/onion_wire.h to
avoid most #ifdefs: simply include those.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Note that other directories were explicitly depending on the generated
file, instead of relying on their (already existing) dependency on
$(LIGHTNINGD_HSM_CLIENT_OBJS), so we remove that.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's almost always "their_features" and "our_features" respectively, so
make those names clear.
Suggested-by: @cdecker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Turns out that unnecessary: all callers can access the feature_set,
so make it much more like a normal primitive.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
common should not include specific per-daemon files. Turns out this
caused a lot of indirect includes to be exposed.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is a better fix than doing it manually, which turned out
to do it in the wrong order (node_announcement followed by
channel_announcement) anyway.
Should fix many "Bad gossip" messages.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I had a report of a 0.7.2 user whose node hadn't appeared on 1ml. Their
node_announcement wasn't visible to my node, either.
I suspect this is a consequence of recent version reducing the amount of
gossip they send, as well as large nodes increasingly turning off gossip
altogether from some peers (as we do). We should ignore timestamp filters
for our own channels: the easiest way to do this is to push them out
directly from gossipd (other messages are sent via the store).
We change channeld to wrap the local channel_announcements: previously
we just handed it to gossipd as for any other gossip message we received
from our peer. Now gossipd knows to push it out, as it's local.
This interferes with the logic in tests/test_misc.py::test_htlc_send_timeout
which expects the node_announcement message last, so we generalize
that too.
[ Thanks to @trueptolmy for bugfix! ]
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It usually means we're missing something, but there's no way to ask what.
Simply start a broad scid probe.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Since we have to validate, there can be a delay (and peer might
vanish) between receiving the gossip and actually confirming it, hence
the use of softref.
We will use this information to check that the peers are making progress
as we start asking them for specific information.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's generally clearer to have simple hardcoded numbers with an
#if DEVELOPER around it, than apparent variables which aren't, really.
Interestingly, our pruning test was always kinda broken: we have to pass
two cycles, since l2 will refresh the channel once to avoid pruning.
Do the more obvious thing, and cut the network in half and check that
l1 and l3 time out.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell