Handling feerates for the fundee (who only receives fee_update) is
simple: it's practically atomic since we accept commitment and send
revocation, thus they're applied to both sides at once.
Handling feerates for the funder is more complex: in theory we could
have multiple in flight. However, if we avoid this using the same
logic as we use to suppress multiple commitments in flight, it's
simple again.
We fix the test code to use real feerate manipulation, thus have to
remove an assert about feerate being non-zero. And now we have
feechanges, we need to rely on the changes_pending flags, as we can
have changes without an HTLCs changing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The wire protocol uses this, in the assumption that we'll never see feerates
in excess of 4294967 satoshi per kiloweight.
So let's use that consistently internally as well.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We currently scan through HTLCs: this isn't enough if we've only got a
feechange in the commitment, so use a flag (but keep both for now for
debugging).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
All the callers need to pass it in: currently channeld and openingd just
fake it by copying the payment point.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
jl777 reported a crash when we try to pay past reserve. Fix that (and
a whole class of related bugs) and add tests.
In test_lightning.py I had to make non-async path for sendpay() non-threaded
to get the exception passed through for testing.
Closes: #236
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
