`Route::get_route_with_id` exists to provide users payment-specific
data when fetching a route, however we were failing to call it when
we have such info, opting for the simple `get_route` instead. This
defeats the purpose of the additional-metadata method, which we
swap to using here.
fbc08477e8 purported to "move" the
`final_cltv_expiry_delta` field to `PaymentParamters` from
`RouteParameters`. However, for naive backwards-compatibility
reasons it left the existing on in place and only added a new,
redundant field in `PaymentParameters`.
It turns out there's really no reason for this - if we take a more
critical eye towards backwards compatibility we can figure out the
correct value in every `PaymentParameters` while deserializing.
We do this here - making `PaymentParameters` a `ReadableArgs`
taking a "default" `cltv_expiry_delta` when it goes to read. This
allows existing `RouteParameters` objects to pass the read
`final_cltv_expiry_delta` field in to be used if the new field
wasn't present.
This field was previous useful in manual retries for users to know when all
paths of a payment have failed and it is safe to retry. Now that we support
automatic retries in ChannelManager and no longer support manual retries, the
field is no longer useful.
For backwards compat, we now always write false for this field. If we didn't do
this, previous versions would default this field's value to true, which can be
problematic because some clients have relied on the field to indicate when a
full payment retry is safe.
Forcing users to pass a genesis block hash has ended up being
error-prone largely due to byte-swapping questions for bindings
users. Further, our API is currently inconsistent - in
`ChannelManager` we take a `Bitcoin::Network` but in `NetworkGraph`
we take the genesis block hash.
Luckily `NetworkGraph` is the only remaining place where we require
users pass the genesis block hash, so swapping it for a `Network`
is a simple change.
Prior to this, we returned PaymentSendFailure from auto retry send payment
methods. This implied that we might return a PartialFailure from them, which
has never been the case. So it makes sense to rework the errors to be a better
fit for the methods.
We're taking error handling in a totally different direction now to make it
more asynchronous, see send_payment_internal for more information.
The new in-`ChannelManager` retries logic does retries as two
separate steps, under two separate locks - first it calculates
the amount that needs to be retried, then it actually sends it.
Because the first step doesn't udpate the amount, a second thread
may come along and calculate the same amount and end up retrying
duplicatively.
Because we generally shouldn't ever be processing retries at the
same time, the fix is trivial - simply take a lock at the top of
the retry loop and hold it until we're done.
We're no longer supporting manual retries since
ChannelManager::send_payment_with_retry can be parameterized by a retry
strategy
This commit also updates all docs related to retry_payment and abandon_payment.
Since these docs frequently overlap with changes in preceding commits where we
start abandoning payments on behalf of the user, all the docs are updated in
one go.
This sets us up for spontaneous payment retries in ChannelManager.
Currently, retrying spontaneous payments is broken in InvoicePayer because it
does not include the keysend preimage on retry.
When we landed the initial in-`ChannelManager` payment retries, we
stored the `RouteParameters` in the payment info, and then re-use
it as-is for new payments. `RouteParameters` is intended to store
the information specific to the *route*, `PaymentParameters` exists
to store information specific to a payment.
Worse, because we don't recalculate the amount stored in the
`RouteParameters` before fetching a new route with it, we end up
attempting to retry the full payment amount, rather than only the
failed part.
This issue brought to you by having redundant data in
datastructures, part 5,001.
The documentation for `Retry` is very clear that it counts the
number of failed paths, not discrete retries. When we added
retries internally in `ChannelManager`, we switched to counting
the number if discrete retries, even if multiple paths failed and
were replace with multiple MPP HTLCs.
Because we are now rewriting retries, we take this opportunity to
reduce the places where retries are analyzed, specifically a good
chunk of code is removed from `pay_internal`.
Because we now retry multiple failed paths with one single retry,
we keep the new behavior, updating the docs on `Retry` to describe
the new behavior.
`TestRouter` allows us to simply select the `Route` that will be
returned in the next `find_route` call, but it does so without any
checking of what was *requested* for the call. This makes it a
somewhat dubious test utility as it very helpfully ensures we
ignore errors in the routes we're looking for.
Instead, we require users of `TestRouter` pass a `RouteParameters`
to `expect_find_route`, which we compare against the requested
parameters passed to `find_route`.
`PaymentParams` is all about the parameters for a payment, i.e. the
parameters which are static across all the paths of a paymet.
`RouteParameters` is about the information specific to a given
`Route` (i.e. a set of paths, among multiple potential sets of
paths for a payment). The CLTV delta thus doesn't belong in
`RouterParameters` but instead in `PaymentParameters`.
Worse, because `RouteParameters` is built from the information in
the last hops of a `Route`, when we deliberately inflate the CLTV
delta in path-finding, retries of the payment will have the final
CLTV delta double-inflated as it inflates starting from the final
CLTV delta used in the last attempt.
When we calculate the `final_cltv_expiry_delta` to put in the
`RouteParameters` returned via events after a payment failure, we
should re-use the new one in the `PaymentParameters`, rather than
the one that was in the route itself.
`PaymentParams` is all about the parameters for a payment, i.e. the
parameters which are static across all the paths of a paymet.
`RouteParameters` is about the information specific to a given
`Route` (i.e. a set of paths, among multiple potential sets of
paths for a payment). The CLTV delta thus doesn't belong in
`RouterParameters` but instead in `PaymentParameters`.
Worse, because `RouteParameters` is built from the information in
the last hops of a `Route`, when we deliberately inflate the CLTV
delta in path-finding, retries of the payment will have the final
CLTV delta double-inflated as it inflates starting from the final
CLTV delta used in the last attempt.
By moving the CLTV delta to `PaymentParameters` we avoid this
issue, leaving only the sought amount in the `RouteParameters`.
