(This was sitting in my gossip-enchancement patch queue, but it simplifies
this set too, so I moved it here).
In 94711969f we added an explicit gossip_index so when gossipd gets
peers back from other daemons, it knows what gossip it has sent (since
gossipd can send gossip after the other daemon is already complete).
This solution is insufficient for the more general case where gossipd
wants to send other messages reliably, so replace it with the other
solution: have gossipd drain the "gossip fd" which the daemon returns.
This turns out to be quite simple, and is probably how I should have
done it originally :(
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
And on channel_fail_permanent and closing (the two places we drop to
chain), we tell gossipd it's no longer important.
Fixes: #1316
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
d822ba1ee accidentally removed this case, which is important: if the
other side didn't get our final matching closing_signed, it will
reconnect and try again. We consider the channel no longer "active"
and thus ignore it, and get upset when it send the
`channel_reestablish` message.
We could just consider CLOSINGD_COMPLETE to be active, but then we'd
have to wait for the closing transaction to be mined before we'd allow
another connection.
We can't special case it when the peer reconnects, because there
could be (in theory) multiple channels for that peer in CLOSINGD_COMPLETE,
and we don't know which one to reestablish.
So, we need to catch this when they send the reestablish, and hand
that msg to closingd to do negotiation again. We already have code
to note that we're in CLOSINGD_COMPLETE and thus ignore any result
it gives us.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Also report tx and txid, and whether we closed unilaterally or
bilaterally, if we could close the channel.
Also make a manpage.
Fixes: #1207Fixes: #714Fixes: #622
We had an intermittant test failure, where the fee we negotiated was
further from our ideal than the final commitment transaction. It worked
fine if the other side sent the mutual close first, but not if we sent
our unilateral close first.
ERROR: test_closing_different_fees (__main__.LightningDTests)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "tests/test_lightningd.py", line 1319, in test_closing_different_fees
wait_for(lambda: p.rpc.listpeers(l1.info['id'])['peers'][0]['channels'][0]['status'][1] == 'ONCHAIN:Tracking mutual close transaction')
File "tests/test_lightningd.py", line 74, in wait_for
raise ValueError("Error waiting for {}", success)
ValueError: ('Error waiting for {}', <function LightningDTests.test_closing_different_fees.<locals>.<lambda> at 0x7f4b43e31a60>)
Really, if we're prepared to negotiate it, we should be prepared to
accept it ourselves. Simply take the cheapest tx which is above our
minimum.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This simplifies things, and means it's always in the database. Our
previous approach to creating it on the fly had holes when it was
created for onchaind, causing us to use another every time we
restarted.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We always hand in "NULL" (which means use tal_len on the msg), except
for two places which do that manually for no good reason.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
ZmnSCPxj
practicalswift