The use of status_failed() requires a stubs update, which fails
with unnamed parameters, so tweak the status.h header as well.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We should never be evicting channel_announcements because a) they were
deeply buried and should not change the short_channel_id/tag, b) they
are static.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
It's just a sha256_double, but importantly when we convert it to a
string (in type_to_string, which is used in logging) we use
bitcoin_blkid_to_hex() so it's reversed as people expect.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If channel_announce is rebroadcast, it should replace the existing one
in-place. We currently only do this if we start from the unsigned one
and replace it with the signed one when we hit 6 confirms.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We can't get them; channel_update doesn't support it.
# 1M nodes:
$ /gossipd/test/run-bench-find_route 1000000 1 > /tmp/out
=> 47677 msec
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In future it will have TOR support, so the name will be awkward.
We collect the to/fromwire functions in common/wireaddr.c, and the
parsing functions in lightningd/netaddress.c.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It makes it impossible to embed an ipaddr in another structure, since we
always try to skip over any zeroes, which may swallow a following field.
Do the skip specially for the case where we're parsing routing messages:
we never use padding for our own internal messages anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
1. The code to skip over padding didn't take into account max.
2. It also didn't use symbolic names.
3. We are not supposed to fail on unknown addresses, just stop parsing.
4. We don't use the read_ip/write_ip code, so get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I missed these when I removed the legacy daemon. We also remove the
min_blocks field which was always 0.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The test is could actually go each way, since for 1000000 the fee is
the same either way.
Increase to 300000, and add an extra test when the alternate path
is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I had a routing problem, and wrote a simple unit test which passed. So
I wrote one which copied the failure case (and importantly, had a non-1
fee factor), which triggerd it.
In that real example, we underflowed which resulted in us not finding
a route. Simply don't consider routes which are infinite.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker