When we apply the new gossip-async-check backpressure on peer
connections, if a peer has never sent us a `channel_announcement`
at all, we really shouldn't delay reading their messages.
This does so by tracking, on a per-peer basis, whether they've sent
us a channel_announcement, and resetting that state whenever we're
not backlogged.
Now that the `RoutingMessageHandler` can signal that it needs to
apply message backpressure, we implement it here in the
`PeerManager`. There's not much complicated here, aside from noting
that we need to add the ability to call `send_data` with no data
to indicate that reading should resume (and track when we may need
to make such calls when updating the routing-backpressure state).
Now that we allow `handle_channel_announcement` to (indirectly)
spawn async tasks which will complete later, we have to ensure it
can apply backpressure all the way up to the TCP socket to ensure
we don't end up with too many buffers allocated for UTXO
validation.
We do this by adding a new method to `RoutingMessageHandler` which
allows it to signal if there are "many" checks pending and
`channel_announcement` messages should be delayed. The actual
`PeerManager` implementation thereof is done in the next commit.
When we process gossip messages asynchronously we may find that we
want to forward a gossip message to a peer after we've returned
from the existing `handle_*` method. In order to do so, we need to
be able to send arbitrary loose gossip messages back to the
`PeerManager` via `MessageSendEvent`.
This commit modifies `MessageSendEvent` in order to support this.
Also swaps `PublicKey` for `NodeId` in `get_next_node_announcement`
and `InitSyncTracker` to avoid unnecessary deserialization that came
from changing `UnsignedNodeAnnouncement`.
Adds the macro `get_pubkey_from_node_id`
to parse `PublicKey`s back from `NodeId`s for signature
verification, as well as `make_funding_redeemscript_from_slices`
to avoid parsing back and forth between types.
Adds a new method, `list_recent_payments ` to `ChannelManager` that
returns an array of `RecentPaymentDetails` containing the payment
status (Fulfilled/Retryable/Abandoned) and its total amount across all
paths.
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`.
As of now the `Confirm::get_relevant_txids()` docs state that it won't
return any transactions for which we hadn't previously seen a
confirmation. To align its functionality a bit more with the docs, at
least for `ChannelManager`, we only return values for which we had
registered a confirmation block hash before.
`test_duplicate_payment_hash_one_failure_one_success` currently
fails if the "wrong" HTLC is picked to be claimed. Given the HTLCs
are identical, there's no way to figure out which we should claim.
The test instead relies on a magic value - the first one is the
right one....unless we change our CSPRNG implementation. When we
try to do so, the test randomly fails.
Here we change one HTLC to a lower amount so we can figure out
which transaction to broadcast to make the test robust against
CSPRNG changes.
FailureCode is used to specify which error code and data to send
to peers when failing back an HTLC.
ChannelManager::fail_htlc_backwards_with_reason
allows a user to specify the error code and
corresponding data to send to peers when failing back an HTLC.
This function is mentioned in Event::PaymentClaimable docs.
ChannelManager::get_htlc_fail_reason_from_failure_code was also
added to assist with this function.
