-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 902
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
pay: still use channels for routehints even if peer says it's disabled. #6556
pay: still use channels for routehints even if peer says it's disabled. #6556
Conversation
We have a report that LND said our (unannounced) channel was disabled, so we didn't use it for routehints. We're better off ignoring that in this case (if the peer is actually not connected, the routehint code will check that and ignore anyway). Fixes: ElementsProject#6555 Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]> Changelog-Changed: pay: use channels in routehints even if peer says they're "disabled" (LND compat)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This LGTM but the CI looks like that catch somethings
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED tests/test_opening.py::test_rbf_broadcast_close_inflights - AssertionError: assert '0446f4874120bebf7f20e378010b3602fee31274f8903dad7570e6bf5b4714a5' in ['5a74e9f4b30c81ddc3996f748a6909875694faa2cf13d516058a484b8fe593e3']
+ where ['5a74e9f4b30c81ddc3996f748a6909875694faa2cf13d516058a484b8fe593e3'] = <function SimpleBitcoinProxy.__getattr__.<locals>.f at 0x7fe35e04af70>()
+ where <function SimpleBitcoinProxy.__getattr__.<locals>.f at 0x7fe35e04af70> = <pyln.testing.utils.SimpleBitcoinProxy object at 0x7fe35e04e460>.getrawmempool
+ where <pyln.testing.utils.SimpleBitcoinProxy object at 0x7fe35e04e460> = <pyln.testing.utils.BitcoinD object at 0x7fe35e03de50>.rpc
Not sure if this is unrelated but it does not seems flaky test
Seems unrelated: the topology and on-chain footprint have not changed, so why would we suddenly fail to see an on-chain transaction? |
No idea :) I just post the CI failure because I was travelling and I was not able a sanity check in the code |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 8bae3d1
We have a report that LND said our (unannounced) channel was disabled, so we didn't use it for routehints. We're better off ignoring that in this case (if the peer is actually not connected, the routehint code will check that and ignore anyway).
Fixes: #6555
Changelog-Changed: pay: use channels in routehints even if peer says they're "disabled" (LND compat)