This adds a new (non-feature) cfg argument `c_bindings` which will
be set when building C bindings. With this, we can (slightly) tweak
behavior and API based on whether we are being built for Rust or C
users.
Ideally we'd never need this, but as long as we can keep the API
consistent-enough to avoid material code drift, this gives us a
cheap way of doing the "right" thing for both C and Rust when the
two are in tension.
We also move lightning-background-processor to support the same
MSRV as the main lightning crate, instead of only
lightning-net-tokio's MSRV.
In upcoming commits, we'll be making the payment secret and payment hash/preimage
derivable from info about the payment + a node secret. This means we don't
need to store any info about incoming payments and can eventually get rid of the
channelmanager::pending_inbound_payments map.
Traits in top-level modules is somewhat confusing - generally
top-level modules are just organizational modules and don't contain
things themselves, instead placing traits and structs in
sub-modules. Further, its incredibly awkward to have a `scorer`
sub-module, but only have a single struct in it, with the relevant
trait it is the only implementation of somewhere else. Not having
`Score` in the `scorer` sub-module is further confusing because
it's the only module anywhere that references scoring at all.
Sending HTLCs which are any greater than a very small fraction of the
channel size tend to fail at a much higher rate. Thus, by default
we start applying a penalty at only 1/8th the channel size and
increase it linearly as the amount reaches the channel's capacity,
20 msat per 1024th of the channel capacity.
This should allow `Score` implementations to make substantially
better decisions, including of the form "willing to pay X to avoid
routing over this channel which may have a high failure rate".
Implementations of Router may need the payment hash in order to look up
pre-computed routes from a probe for a given payment. Add a PaymentHash
parameter to Router::find_route to allow for this.
Modify all InvoicePayer unit tests to use expect_send instead of
expect_value_msat, since the former can discern whether the send was for
an invoice, spontaneous payment, or a retry. Updates tests to set payer
expectations if they weren't already and assert these before returning a
failure.
InvoicePayer handles retries not only when handling PaymentPathFailed
events but also for some types of PaymentSendFailure on the initial
send. Expand InvoicePayer's interface with a pay_pubkey function for
spontaneous (keysend) payments. Add a send_spontaneous_payment function
to the Payer trait to support this and implement it for ChannelManager.
To support spontaneous payments, InvoicePayer's sending logic must be
invoice-agnostic. Refactor InvoicePayer::pay_invoice_internal such that
invoice-specific code is in pay_invoice_using_amount and the remaining
logic is in pay_internal.
Further refactor the code's payment_cache locking such that it is
accessed consistently when needed, and tidy up the code a bit.
Currently, we write out the Channel's `ChannelTypeFeatures` as an
odd type, implying clients which don't understand the
`ChannelTypeFeatures` field can simply ignore it. This is obviously
nonsense if the channel type is some future version - the client
needs to fail to deserialize as it doesn't understand the channel's
type.
We adapt the serialization logic here to only write out the
`ChannelTypeFeatures` field if it is something other than
only-static-remote-key, and simply consider that "default" (as it
is the only supported type today). Then, we write out the channel
type as an even TLV, implying clients which do not understand it
must fail to read the `Channel`.
Note that we do not need to bother reserving the TLV type no longer
written as it never appeared in a release (merged post-0.0.103).
We currently assume our counterparty is naive and misconfigured and
may force-close a channel to get an HTLC we just forwarded them.
There shouldn't be any reason to do this - we don't have any such
bug, and we shouldn't start by assuming our counterparties are
buggy. Worse, this results in refusing to forward payments today,
failing HTLCs for largely no reason.
Instead, we keep a fairly conservative check, but not one which
will fail HTLC forwarding spuriously - testing only that the HTLC
doesn't expire for a few blocks from now.
Fixes#1114.
If we send a payment and fail to update the first-hop channel state
with a `PermanentFailure` ChannelMonitorUpdateErr, we would have an
entry in our pending payments map, but possibly not return the
PaymentId back to the user to retry the payment, leading to a (rare
and relatively minor) memory leak.
I realized on my own node that I don't have any visibility into how
long a monitor or manager persistence call takes, potentially
blocking other operations. This makes it much more clear by adding
a relevant log_trace!() print immediately before and immediately
after persistence.
