We were using `number` instead of `u32` which caused it to be
serialized to string with a decimal, which then would be rejected by
lightningd.
Changelog-Fixed: proto: Fixed a wrong number type being used in routes
OpenAPI readme always includes `content-type: application/json` header, even when body parameters are empty.
But the server expects data if the content-type has been sent.
This results in a "Server Error" response for non-param requests from readme doc.
This only affects readme requests as it is designed to send the header by default.
Changelog-None
1. When we add a shadow amount, we were using the wrong channel for
the fee calculation.
2. Similarly, when calculating the delay amount.
The result is that we can get WIRE_INCORRECT_CLTV_EXPIRY repeatedly
from nodes.
Reported-by: https://github.com/SjorsFixes: #6620
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Changlog-Experimental: Fixed: `renepay` handles ctlv correctly when it varies along a path.
"id" is a magic name, so it was being populated by sqlite3
automatically, starting at 0. Fortunately, we only fetched by id in
one place: to indicate the `stored` flag when asked about an explicit
rune in `showrunes`.
Reported-by: @ShahanaFarooqui
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Changelog-Fixed: JSON-RPC: `showrunes` on a specific rune would always say `stored`: false.
```
Flow 391: amount=23528000msat prob=0.000 fees=1023msat delay=140 path=-2471854x37x4/1(min=max=23528783msat)->-2414928x98x0/0->
Flow 391: Failure of 23529023msat for 2471854x37x4/1 capacity [23528783msat,23528783msat] -> [23528783msat,23528783msat]
```
We added fees and went over capacity! This screams of a deeper logic
bug, but renepay is experimental and it's release day so hack around
it for now...
Reported-by: https://github.com/daywalker90
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Eduardo is on holiday right now, but he pinged me asking for this. It
makes some sense, and using half the *failed value* covers the case where
it's less than half what we expected.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It now looks like (for test_hardmpp):
```
# we have computed a set of 1 flows with probability 0.328, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 1: amount=1800000000msat prob=0.328 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 1: Failed at node #1 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE): failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
# Flow 1: Failure of 1800000000msat for 103x5x0/0 capacity [0msat,3000000000msat] -> [0msat,1799999999msat]
# we have computed a set of 2 flows with probability 0.115, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 2: amount=500000000msat prob=0.475 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x6x0/0(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x1x0/1->-103x4x0/1->
# Flow 3: amount=1300000000msat prob=0.242 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0(max=1799999999msat)->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 3: Failed at node #1 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE): failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
# Flow 3: Failure of 1300000000msat for 103x5x0/0 capacity [0msat,1799999999msat] -> [0msat,1299999999msat]
# we have computed a set of 2 flows with probability 0.084, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 4: amount=260000000msat prob=0.467 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x6x0/0(500000000msat in 1 htlcs,min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x1x0/1(500000000msat in 1 htlcs)->-103x4x0/1(500000000msat in 1 htlcs)->
# Flow 5: amount=1040000000msat prob=0.179 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0(max=1299999999msat)->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 5: Failed at node #1 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE): failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
# Flow 5: Failure of 1040000000msat for 103x5x0/0 capacity [0msat,1299999999msat] -> [0msat,1039999999msat]
# we have computed a set of 2 flows with probability 0.052, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 6: amount=120000000msat prob=0.494 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x6x0/0(760000000msat in 2 htlcs,min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x1x0/1(760000000msat in 2 htlcs)->-103x4x0/1(760000000msat in 2 htlcs)->
# Flow 7: amount=920000000msat prob=0.105 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0(max=1039999999msat)->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 7: Success
```
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I am doing to add more more debugging, but sent here is 0.
Document that clearly, and put a real value in sent.
Also: since we already sub 1 msat from x, amount_msat_less_eq should
be amount_msat_less (it may be equal to our min, in theory).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The code to workaround the intermittant error didn't work,
and we finally hit it again:
```
# If reject happens fast enough, connect fails with "disconnected
# during connection"
try:
l3.connect(l1)
except RpcError as err:
> assert "disconnected during connection" in err.error
E assert 'disconnected during connection' in {'code': 402, 'message': 'disconnected during connection'}
E + where {'code': 402, 'message': 'disconnected during connection'} = RpcError("RPC call failed: method: connect, payload: {'id': '0266e4598d1d3c415f572a8488830b60f7e744ed9235eb0b1ba93283b315c03518', 'host': '127.0.0.1', 'port': 41865}, error: {'code': 402, 'message': 'disconnected during connection'}").error
```
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
During tests we can see that the subdaemon can be restarted unnecessarily if we're slow enough; we don't need to do so if it's still running.
Reported-by: Matt Morehouse <mattmorehouse@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
```
l3.rpc.setconfig('autoclean-cycle', 10)
# First it expires.
> wait_for(lambda: only_one(l3.rpc.listinvoices('inv1')['invoices'])['status'] == 'expired')
```
If we're slow enough, the invoice is cleaned before we see it expire!
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
```
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: 0x7fa921f8ffcf ???
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: ./signal/../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/libc_sigaction.c:0
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: 0x55b3bb54e6d3 pay_flow_finished_adding_gossip
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: plugins/renepay/pay_flow.c:675
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: 0x55b3bb54af25 addgossip_done
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: plugins/renepay/pay.c:171
```
The assert we fail is almost certainly due to the flow being freed:
```
struct pf_result *pay_flow_finished_adding_gossip(struct pay_flow *pf)
{
assert(pf->state == PAY_FLOW_FAILED_GOSSIP_PENDING);
```
Reported-by: https://github.com/daywalker90Fixes: #6567
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We determine whether they are allowed or not based on the hook return
value of `mindepth`. To do so we need to pass that value down to
`openingd` and verify that the `channel_type` and our permissions
match up.
There's a fascinating bug report which suggests this happens on local channels,
implying spendable_msat is wrong?
See-also: #6567
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
1. announce-addr-discovered-port takes a port option.
2. accept-htlc-tlv-types was deprecated in favor of multiple accept-htlc-tlv-type.
3. Document clnrest.py options.
4. Don't list --version twice in lightningd --help (initial_config_opts calls
opt_register_version() already).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
