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