Since elements addresses look quite different from the bitcoin mainnet
addresses I just added a sample to the chainparams fixture. In addition I
extracted some of the fixed strings to reference chainparams instead.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
It only had an effect if the peer didn't support option_gossip_queries, but
still, we don't want a gossip blast any more.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The test was implicitly relying on us selecting the larger output and then not
touching the smaller, leaving it there for the final `withdraw` to claim. This
ordering of UTXOs is not guaranteed, and in particular can fail when switching
DB backends. To stabilize we just need to make sure to select the change
output as well.
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>
After switching to a plugin, we verify that we can fund a channel
before we check to contact a peer. We'll need to have a funded wallet
to pass the check in this test that verifies that 'fundchannel' cannot
be called for a peer after fundchannel_start is.
For now, we can't fully ensure that the broadcast was catched from a third pary. Only when the transaction (broadcast by a third pary) is onchain, we can catch it.
531c8d7d9b
In this one, we always send my_current_per_commitment_point, though it's
ignored. And we have our official feature numbers.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
As per BOLT02 #message-retransmission :
if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it sent and received:
- MUST retransmit `funding_locked`
I don't remember ever seeing a bug which only showed up in VALGRIND=1 with developer
mode disabled, so don't test that, and spread out the other test more evenly.
In addition, disable the worst-performing tests in DEVELOPER=0 mode.
Here timings from my build machine: the worst 6 (- DEVELOPER=0 VALGRIND=0)
with the same tests (+ DEVELOPER=1 VALGRIND=1)
-452.42s call tests/test_pay.py::test_channel_spendable
+87.69s call tests/test_pay.py::test_channel_spendable
-335.66s call tests/test_gossip.py::test_gossip_store_compact_on_load
+47.41s call tests/test_gossip.py::test_gossip_store_compact_on_load
-332.07s call tests/test_connection.py::test_opening_tiny_channel
+89.71s call tests/test_connection.py::test_opening_tiny_channel
-331.97s call tests/test_pay.py::test_channel_spendable_large
+56.23s call tests/test_pay.py::test_channel_spendable_large
-305.28s call tests/test_invoices.py::test_invoice_routeboost
+37.57s call tests/test_invoices.py::test_invoice_routeboost
-284.28s call tests/test_plugin.py::test_htlc_accepted_hook_forward_restart
+49.12s call tests/test_plugin.py::test_htlc_accepted_hook_forward_restart
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We're about to change the API, so this makes the tests still work
across the transition (and, as a bonus, tests our backwards compat
shim).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This test is spawning 100 nodes concurrently, which is a lot even when not
running with `valgrind`, especially when executing tests in parallel.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Instead of taking over the ->cmd pointer, append ourselves to a list
of cancels. This fixes the test_funding_cancel_race.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
And clean up some dev ones which actually happen (mainly by calling
channel_fail_permanent which logs UNUSUAL, rather than
channel_internal_error which logs BROKEN).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@pm47 gave a great bug report showing c-lightning sending the same
UPDATE_FEE over and over, with the final surprise result being that we
blamed the peer for sending us multiple empty commits!
The spam is caused by us checking "are we at the desired feerate?" but
then if we can't afford the desired feerate, setting the feerate we
can afford, even though it's a duplicate. Doing the feerate cap before
we test if it's what we have already eliminates this.
But the empty commits was harder to find: it's caused by a heuristic in
channel_rcvd_revoke_and_ack:
```
/* For funder, ack also means time to apply new feerate locally. */
if (channel->funder == LOCAL &&
(channel->view[LOCAL].feerate_per_kw
!= channel->view[REMOTE].feerate_per_kw)) {
status_trace("Applying feerate %u to LOCAL (was %u)",
channel->view[REMOTE].feerate_per_kw,
channel->view[LOCAL].feerate_per_kw);
channel->view[LOCAL].feerate_per_kw
= channel->view[REMOTE].feerate_per_kw;
channel->changes_pending[LOCAL] = true;
}
```
We assume we never send duplicates, so we detect an otherwise-empty
change using the difference in feerates. If we don't set this flag,
we will get upset if we receive a commitment_signed since we consider
there to be no changes to commit.
This is actually hard to test: the previous commit adds a test which
spams update_fee and doesn't trigger this bug, because both sides
use the same "there's nothing outstanding" logic.
Fixes: #2701
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Remote node may (incorrectly) not send announcement_signatures when
reconnecting, so we we use a copy and can still re-announce.
Also checks that we still send our announcement_signatures when reconnecting.
The old value of 1000 sat was too small to cover the dust reserves.
This lead to the situation when trying to open a channel with minimal
amount, the channels got refused because they were not able cover the
commitment fees.
For this reason the minimal capacity should be increased to i.e. 10k
satoshi, as the technical minimum that also accounts for fees and
reserves is somewhere around 6k sat.
trueptolemy
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker
lisa neigut
darosior
Simon Vrouwe
Michael Schmoock