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`.
While now `ChannelManager` will only return previously confirmed
transactions, we can't ensure the same for `ChainMonitor`, as we need to
maintain backwards compatibility with version prior to 0.0.113, at which
we started tracking the block hash in `ChannelMonitor`s. We therefore
add a note to the docs stating that users need to track confirmations on
their own for channels created prior to 0.0.113.
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.
When we're calculating if, once we apply the unupdated decays, the
historical data tracker has enough data to assign a score, we
previously calculated the decayed points while walking the buckets
as we don't use the decayed buckets anyway (to avoid losing
precision). That is fine, except that as written it decayed
individual buckets additional times.
Instead, here we actually calculate the full set of decayed buckets
and use those to decide if we have valid points. This adds some
additional stack space and may in fact be slower, but will be
useful in the next commit and shouldn't be a huge change.
The offer_metadata was optional but is redundant with invreq_metadata
(i.e., payer_metadata) for refunds. It is now disallowed in the spec and
was already unsupported by RefundBuilder.
The spec always allowed this but the reason was unclear. It's useful if
the refund is for an invoice paid for offer where a quantity was given
in the request. The description in the refund would be from the offer,
which may have given a unit for each item. So allowing a quantity makes
it clear how many items the refund is for.
The spec was modified to allow setting offer_quantity_max explicitly to
one. This is to support a use case where more than one item is supported
but only one item is left in the inventory. Introduce a Quantity::One
variant to replace Quantity::Bounded(1) so the later can be used for the
explicit setting.
`ChannelMonitor` indirectly already has a context - the
`OnchainTxHandler` has one. This makes it trivial to remove the
existing one, so we do so for a free memory usage reduction.
It turns out `#[derive(PartialEq)]` will automatically bound the
`PartialEq` implementation by any bounds on the struct also being
`PartialEq`. This means to use an auto-derived `ChannelMonitor`
`PartialEq` the `EcdsaSigner` used must also be `PartialEq`, but
for the use-cases we have today for a `ChannelMonitor` `PartialEq`
it doesn't really matter - we use it internally in tests and
downstream users wanted similar test-only usage.
Fixes#1912.
`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.
