1. The code to skip over padding didn't take into account max.
2. It also didn't use symbolic names.
3. We are not supposed to fail on unknown addresses, just stop parsing.
4. We don't use the read_ip/write_ip code, so get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I missed these when I removed the legacy daemon. We also remove the
min_blocks field which was always 0.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Use a negative timestamp as the flag for this, making the test simple.
This allows valgrind to detect that we're accessing them prematurely,
including across the wire on gossip_getchannels_entry.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The test is could actually go each way, since for 1000000 the fee is
the same either way.
Increase to 300000, and add an extra test when the alternate path
is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I had a routing problem, and wrote a simple unit test which passed. So
I wrote one which copied the failure case (and importantly, had a non-1
fee factor), which triggerd it.
In that real example, we underflowed which resulted in us not finding
a route. Simply don't consider routes which are infinite.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Since we initialize last_timestamp to 0, we ignore any initial update
with this timestamp. Don't compare it if we don't already have an
update, and don't initialize it, so valgrind can tell us if we use
it accidentally.
b'lightning_gossipd(3368): TRACE: Received channel_update for channel 6892:2:1(0)'
b'lightning_gossipd(3368): TRACE: Ignoring outdated update.'
b'lightning_gossipd(3368): TRACE: Received channel_update for channel 6893:2:1(1)'
b'lightning_gossipd(3368): TRACE: Channel 6893:2:1(1) was updated.'
The same logic applies to node_updates, so we do the same there.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
