Whenever we have multi-connected nodes, out-of-order gossip is possible.
In particular, if a node_announcement is 1 second fresher than the
channel_announcement, a timestamp_filter might get one and not the
other.
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>
Make update_local_channel use a timer if it's too soon to make another
update.
1. Implement cupdate_different() which compares two updates.
2. make update_local_channel() take a single arg for timer usage.
3. Set timestamp of non-disable update back 5 minutes, so we can
always generate a disable update if we need to.
4. Make update_local_channel() itself do the "unchanged update" suppression.
gossipd: clean up local channel updates.
5. Keep pointer to the current timer so we override any old updates with
a new one, to avoid a race.
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>
Remove gratuitous prints, add explanations of what's going on,
and demonstrate that we can add a final trimmed HTLC but not
a non-trimmed one.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subtracting both arbitrarily reduces our capacity, even for ourselves
since the routing logic uses this maximum.
I also changed 'advertise' to 'advertize', since we use american
spelling.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Turns out we needed more comprehensive testing; we ended up with three
separate tests. To avoid changing test_channel_drainage as we fix
spendable_msat, I substituted raw numbers there.
The first is a variation of the existing tests, testing we can't
exceed spendable_msat, and we can pay it, both ways.
The second is with a larger amount, which triggers a different problem.
The final is with a giant channel, which tests our 2^32-1 msat cap.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is where payment tests should go. Also mark it xfail for the moment,
and remove developer-only tag (propagating gossip is only 60 seconds, which
is OK).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Broken by 909913c265, but since Travis
skips this test ("temporarily", according to the commit msg in January!)
it wasn't caught.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Here I add the test for this 5 local_failed case in this commit.
There 5 cases for FORWARD_LOCAL_FAILED status:
1. When Msater resolves the reply about the next peer infor(sent by Gossipd), and need handle unknown next peer failure in channel_resolve_reply();
2. When Master handle the forward process with the htlc_in and the id of next hop, it tries to drive a new htlc_out but fails in forward_htlc();
3. When we send htlc_out, Master asks Channeld to add a new htlc into the outgoing channel but Channeld fails. Master need handle and store this failure in rcvd_htlc_reply();
4. When Channeld receives a new revoke message, if the state of corresponding htlc is RCVD_ADD_ACK_REVOCATION, Master will tries to resolve onionpacket and handle the failure before resolving the next hop in peer_got_revoke();
5. When Onchaind finds the htlc time out or missing htlc, Master need handle these failure as FORWARD_LOCAL_FAILED in if it's forward payment case.
We generated blocks to announce the channel, but it can also expire
the HTLC if the timing is wrong. We don't need to anyway, since we
fixed the FIXME; we store local unannounced channels for restoration
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We're going to make it async, so start by moving the core code into
invoice.c and having that directly call fail/success functions for the
htlc.
We add an extra check in fulfill_htlc() that the HTLC state is correct:
that can't happen now, but may once we're async.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is currently done higher up, in handle_channel_update(), but
that's one reason why handle_channel_update() has to do a channel
lookup. Moving the check down means handle_channel_update() can do a
minimal "get node id for this channel" so it can check the signature.
This helps, because the chan lookup semantics are changing in the next
few patches.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
gossipd in l1 might not have registered l2 reconnecting, thus considering
the channel local-disabled.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
New name is less confusing, and most people should be transitioning to
listpays rather than this anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is the same deprecation, but one level up. For the moment, we
still support invoices with a `h` field (where description will be
necessary) but that will be removed once this option is removed.
Note that I just changed pylightning without backwards compatibility,
since the field was unlikely to be used, but we could do something
more complex here?
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is particularly interesting because we handle overflow during route
calculation now; this could happen in theory once we wumbo.
It fixes a thinko when we print out routehints, too: we want to print
them out literally, not print out the effect they have on fees (which
is in the route, which we also print).
This ABI change doesn't need a CHANGELOG, since paystatus is new since
release.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Little point having users handle the postfixes manually, this
translates them, and also allows Millisatoshi to be used wherever an
'int' would be previously.
There are also helpers to create the formatting in a way c-lightning's
JSONRPC will accept.
All standard arithmetic operations with integers work.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We had occasional failures, because the fuzz could overwhelm the difference
in routes. Increasing the amount to 2,000,000 millisatoshis makes the
riskfactor 53msat (2000000 * 14 * 10 / 5259600) which is always greater
than the worst-case fuzz of 5% on the fee of 1002msat.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I got a spurious failure because the final node gave a CLTV error and
so it decided to use a different channel. It should probably handle
this corner case better, but meanwhile make the test robust.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It was waiting for a remote channel, but not for all the interesting
channels we want to check. It can sometimes happen that further away
channels are added before closer ones are added, depending on
propagation path, flush timers and bitcoind poll timers. This now just
checks for all channels, which also reduces the ambiguity of whether
we selected a path solely because we were lacking alternatives.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Travis timed out.
Waiting for three fundchannel commands depends on the bitcoind polling
interval (30 seconds), and then waiting for gossip propagation
requires two propagation intervals (120 seconds).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Up until now, riskfactor was useless due to implementation bugs, and
also the default setting is wrong (too low to have an effect on
reasonable payment scenarios).
Let's simplify the definition (by assuming that P(failure) of a node
is 1), to make it a simple percentage. I examined the current network
fees to see what would work, and under this definition, a default of
10 seems reasonable (equivalent to 1000 under the old definition).
It is *this* change which finally fixes our test case! The riskfactor
is now 40msat (1500000 * 14 * 10 / 5259600 = 39.9), comparable with
worst-case fuzz is 50msat (1001 * 0.05 = 50).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The test sometimes passes: our routing logic always chooses between
the shorter of two equal-cost routes (because we compare best with <
not <=).
By adding another hop, we add more noise, and by making the alternate
route fee 0 we provide the worst case.
But to be fair, we make the amount of the payment ~50c (15,000,000
msat), and increase our cltv-delay to 14 and fee-base 1000 to match
mainnet. The final patch shows the effect of this choice.
Otherwise our risk penalty is completely in the noise on
mainnet which has the vast majority of fees set at 1000msat + 1ppm.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker
trueptolemy
trueptolemy
Michael Schmoock