Retry untractable packages

[wpaulino]

Untractable packages are those which cannot have their fees updated once signed, hence why they weren't retried. There's no harm in retrying these packages by simply re-broadcasting them though, as the fee market could have spontaneously spiked when we first broadcast it, leading to our transaction not propagating throughout node mempools unless broadcast manually.

[TheBlueMatt]

Given how much pressure this puts on the user's broadcaster working the first time, would be really nice to land this for 115, yea :(.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 98.31% and project coverage change: -0.02 ⚠️

Comparison is base (2e15df7) 91.37% compared to head (a3b416a) 91.35%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2203      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.37%   91.35%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         102      102              
  Lines       50748    50832      +84     
  Branches    50748    50832      +84     
==========================================
+ Hits        46369    46440      +71     
- Misses       4379     4392      +13     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs	92.67% <85.71%> (-0.37%)	⬇️
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs	98.25% <98.27%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs	97.77% <98.52%> (-0.51%)	⬇️
lightning/src/chain/package.rs	92.55% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/functional_test_utils.rs	92.73% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs	97.57% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/test_utils.rs	76.39% <100.00%> (+0.36%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[TheBlueMatt]

Thanks!

[wpaulino]

$ git diff -U1 e93a73b a3b416a3
diff --git a/lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs b/lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs
index 022b3da5..14b06457 100644
--- a/lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs
+++ b/lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs
@@ -11,3 +11,3 @@

-use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
+use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, LATENCY_GRACE_PERIOD_BLOCKS};
 use crate::chain::transaction::OutPoint;
@@ -469,4 +469,3 @@ fn test_set_outpoints_partial_claiming() {
        // Connect blocks on node B
-       mine_transaction(&nodes[1], &remote_txn[0]);
-       connect_blocks(&nodes[1], 134);
+       connect_blocks(&nodes[1], TEST_FINAL_CLTV + LATENCY_GRACE_PERIOD_BLOCKS + 1);
        check_closed_broadcast!(nodes[1], true);
@@ -477,9 +476,10 @@ fn test_set_outpoints_partial_claiming() {
                let mut node_txn = nodes[1].tx_broadcaster.unique_txn_broadcast();
-               assert_eq!(node_txn.len(), 2);
-               check_spends!(node_txn[0], remote_txn[0]);
-               check_spends!(node_txn[1], remote_txn[0]);
-               assert_eq!(node_txn[0].input.len(), 1);
+               assert_eq!(node_txn.len(), 3);
+               check_spends!(node_txn[0], chan.3);
+               check_spends!(node_txn[1], node_txn[0]);
+               check_spends!(node_txn[2], node_txn[0]);
                assert_eq!(node_txn[1].input.len(), 1);
-               assert_ne!(node_txn[0].input[0].previous_output, node_txn[1].input[0].previous_output);
-               node_txn.remove(0)
+               assert_eq!(node_txn[2].input.len(), 1);
+               assert_ne!(node_txn[1].input[0].previous_output, node_txn[2].input[0].previous_output);
+               node_txn.remove(1)
        };