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>
The only real change is dump_gossip() used to call
maybe_create_next_scid_reply(), but now I've simply renamed
that to maybe_send_query_responses() and we call it directly.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The first one means we don't discard channels just because we're not
synced, and the second is implied by the spec: don't accept
channel_announcement if the channel isn't 6 deep. Since LND defers in
such cases, we do too (unless it's newer than the current block, in
which case we simply discard). Otherwise there's a risk that a slow
node might discard valid gossip.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This will let gossipd be more intelligent about gossiping before we're
synced, and also it might know how far behind we are.
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>
If you send a message which simply changes timestamp and signature, we
drop it. You shouldn't be doing that, and the door to ignoring them
was opened by by option_gossip_query_ex, which would allow clients to
ignore updates with the same checksum.
This is more aggressive at reducing spam messages, but we allow refreshes
(to be conservative, we allow them even when 1/2 of the way through the
refresh period).
I dropped the now-unnecessary sleep from test_gossip_pruning, too.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We've been slack, but it's going to be important for testing
ratelimiting. And it currently has a minor memory leak.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rather than reaching into data structures, let them register their own
callbacks. This avoids us having to expose "memleak_remove_xxx"
functions, and call them manually.
Under the hood, this is done by having a specially-named tal child of
the thing we want to assist, containing the callback.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
`make update-mocks` is usually run in DEVELOPER mode, but then it includes
definitions for functions which aren't declared in non-DEVELOPER mode.
We hacked this in a few places, but it's fragile, and worst, now we
have EXPERIMENTAL_FEATURES as well, it's complex.
Instead, declare developer-only functions (but don't define them).
This is a bit more awkward if you accidentally use one in
non-DEVELOPER code (link error rather than compile error), but makes
autogenerating test mocks much easier.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
trueptolemy