Check that funder covers the fee spike buffer multiple after a splice#4433
Check that funder covers the fee spike buffer multiple after a splice#4433tankyleo wants to merge 2 commits intolightningdevkit:mainfrom
Conversation
|
👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer! |
tankyleo
force-pushed
the
2026-02-splice-assertions
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9035906 to
1959d52
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4433 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 85.94% 85.98% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 159 159
Lines 104644 104652 +8
Branches 104644 104652 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 89934 89985 +51
+ Misses 12204 12165 -39
+ Partials 2506 2502 -4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| 1 | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| let feerate_per_kw = if !funding.get_channel_type().supports_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be funding.get_channel_type() == ChannelTypeFeatures::only_static_remote_key?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mentioned offline: only_static_remote_key would not match against only_static_remote_key + scid_privacy channels.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The zero fee commitments case is quite subtle, can we at least add a comment?
|
👋 The first review has been submitted! Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer. |
Notably, if a party splices funds into the channel, their new balance must be above the new reserve.
tankyleo
force-pushed
the
2026-02-splice-assertions
branch
3 times, most recently
from
c1b8f14 to
260dcc5
Compare
| 1 | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| let feerate_per_kw = if !funding.get_channel_type().supports_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The zero fee commitments case is quite subtle, can we at least add a comment?
lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs
Outdated
| let (preimage_0_to_1_b, _hash_0_to_1, ..) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], 40_000_000); | ||
|
|
||
| // Let the sender of the splice-out first be channel fundee, then the channel funder: | ||
| // 0) Set the channel up such that when the sender requests a splice-out, their balance is equal to their |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's inline these comments throughout the code instead, and move do_clunky_splice_out_dance into a closure here
lightning/src/ln/splicing_tests.rs
Outdated
| matches!(events.pop().unwrap(), Event::DiscardFunding { channel_id: chan_id, .. } if chan_id == channel_id ) | ||
| ); | ||
| assert!( | ||
| matches!(events.pop().unwrap(), Event::SpliceFailed { channel_id: chan_id, .. } if chan_id == channel_id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use expect_splice_failed_events
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(test)] | ||
| fn do_test_splice_pending_htlcs(config: UserConfig) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a lot of unnecessary verticality throughout the test, can we clean those up by extracting things into vars when useful?
tankyleo
force-pushed
the
2026-02-splice-assertions
branch
from
260dcc5 to
5462ab2
Compare
We do this for HTLCs, so we should also do this for splices. This only applies to channels with non-zero-fee HTLC transactions.
tankyleo
force-pushed
the
2026-02-splice-assertions
branch
from
5462ab2 to
f784731
Compare
3 participants
and