The previous tests didn't make sense anyway, but I think they were trying
to exclude onchain channels.
We delete completely forgotten channels anyway now, so we don't need
such testing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Error code is inverted (which makes sense: who returns 'true' on
error?), and anyway there's a leak if we do error.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
`pay_index` has no valid value if not PAID anyway, so
we should correctly leave it uninitialized.
Analysis via valgrind will catch incorrect use of
uninitialized fields.
If we load it with a dummy 0 value, then an
incorrect use of `pay_index` whan invoice is not
PAID will not get caught by valgrind.
From test_reconnect_sender_add1:
lightningd(13643):BROKEN: backtrace: wallet/wallet.c:1537 (wallet_payment_set_status) 0x561c91b03080
lightningd(13643):BROKEN: backtrace: lightningd/pay.c:67 (payment_failed) 0x561c91ac4f99
lightningd(13643):BROKEN: backtrace: lightningd/peer_htlcs.c:132 (fail_out_htlc) 0x561c91acf627
lightningd(13643):BROKEN: backtrace: lightningd/peer_htlcs.c:321 (hout_subd_died) 0x561c91acfb62
When payment fails, we call wallet_payment_set_status; this is perfectly
possible before it's been committed.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
For performance, we delay entering the 'wallet_payment' into the db
until we actually commit to the HTLC (when we have to touch the DB
anyway).
This opens a race where we can try to pay twice, and since it's not in
the database yet, we don't notice the duplicate.
So remove the temporary payment field from htlc_out, which was always
an uncomfortable hack, and make the wallet code abstract over the
deferred entry a little by maintaining a 'unstored_payments' list
and incorporating that in results.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We need these to decode any returned errors.
We remove it from struct pay_command too, and load directly from db
when we need it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We should be saving this, as it's our proof of payment. Also, we return
it if they try to pay again.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Paid invoices need to know how much was actually paid: both for the case
where no 'msatoshi' amount was specified, and for the normal case, where
clients are permitted to overpay in order to help them disguise their
payments.
While we migrate the db, we leave this field as 0 for old paid
invoices. This is unhelpful for accounting, but at least clearly
indicates what happened if we find this in the wild.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This reuses the same code internally, and also now means that we deal
correctly with "any" msatoshi invoices: the old code would a return
'msatoshi' of 0 in that case.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We were using int32 for msatoshi values for outputs, which would
overflow for values larger than 2^32.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
So far we have been generating the tx both in the HSM and in the
caller, and had to rely on them generating exactly the same
transaction. This makes it a lot simpler by fully signing and
serializing the TX on the HSM side and the caller just needs to unpack
and broadcast it.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This is necessary to grad the their_unilateral/to-us outputs since
they aren't being harvested by `onchaind`
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
This gives us a lower bound on where funding tx could be.
In theory, it could be lower than this if we get a reorganization, but
in practice this is already a 1-block buffer (since we can't get into
current block, only the next one).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's only used for tests, but it's better to use the wallet_channels_load_active like
the real code.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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_txid_to_hex() so it's reversed as people expect.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I prefer the typesafety of specific functions, rather than having the
caller know that txids are traditionally reversed in bitcoin.
And we already have a bitcoin_txid_to_hex() function for this.
Closes: #411
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker
practicalswift
ZmnSCPxj
Björge Dijkstra
Filipe Farinha