Skip to content
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

htlcswitch+invoices: allow settling invoices via multi-path payments #3415

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 11, 2019

Conversation

joostjager
Copy link
Contributor

@joostjager joostjager commented Aug 19, 2019

Before this PR, MPP fields in the payload were parsed but not processed. This PR adds processing of those fields in the invoice registry. This means that it is now possible to settle an invoice using multiple partial payments.

@joostjager joostjager changed the title htlcswitch+invoices: multi-path payments [wip] [no review] htlcswitch+invoices: multi-path payments [wip] [don't review] Aug 23, 2019
@joostjager joostjager added incomplete WIP PR, not fully finalized, but light review possible blocked labels Oct 11, 2019
@joostjager joostjager self-assigned this Oct 23, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@cfromknecht cfromknecht left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just did a quick pass to refresh my memory of this pr. i know you said don't review, but just leaving some initial comments tho i'm sure the underlying pr has changed a bit

invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/lncli/commands.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/lncli/commands.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cmd/lncli/commands.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lnrpc/rpc.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@joostjager joostjager changed the title htlcswitch+invoices: multi-path payments [wip] [don't review] htlcswitch+invoices: allow settling invoices via multi-path payments Nov 5, 2019
@joostjager joostjager added this to the 0.9.0 milestone Nov 5, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@cfromknecht cfromknecht left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so far so good, changes coming together :) should be pretty close to being able to do a full e2e!

invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@cfromknecht cfromknecht left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

did another pass, just one minor nit. is it time to remove debug commits?

invoices/invoiceregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@joostjager
Copy link
Contributor Author

debug commits removed

Copy link
Contributor

@cfromknecht cfromknecht left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 🍾

@joostjager
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cfromknecht brought up the mpp timeout failure. Will address that in a follow up in coordination with @carlaKC.

Without this error returned, senders that actually support sending multiple shards and interpret this new failure will not function optimally. But seems acceptable for where we are right now.

Copy link
Contributor

@halseth halseth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All aboard the mpptrain! 🚂 LGTM

queue/priority_queue.go Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
queue/priority_queue.go Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/clock_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/clock_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/clock_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/clock_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Show resolved Hide resolved
invoices/invoiceregistry.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -196,6 +259,29 @@ func (i *InvoiceRegistry) invoiceEventNotifier() {
i.singleNotificationClients[e.id] = e
}

// A new htlc came in for auto-release.
case event := <-i.htlcAutoReleaseChan:
log.Debugf("Scheduling auto-release for htlc: "+
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't we use either signed or unsigned types for block height everywhere?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that is inconsistent at the moment. But if you start changing, you will expand into many different areas and also replace one case by the other sometimes.

"time"
)

// testClock can be used in tests to mock time.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Really nice! May I suggest you to extend clock.Clock interface and use that as a common ground instead? Maybe also move this test clock in that package such that others can use it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't want to delay this PR with a discussion on where to put that package/file. Given the time those took in past prs I'd rather avoid it (reference class forecasting).

invoices/invoiceregistry_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -674,3 +693,85 @@ func (p *mockPayload) MultiPath() *record.MPP {
func (p *mockPayload) CustomRecords() hop.CustomRecordSet {
return make(hop.CustomRecordSet)
}

// TestSettleMpp tests settling of an invoice with multiple partial payments.
func TestSettleMpp(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like the file changed during review. The above comment meant to be here: "I think it's important to test cases where settlement may fail".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is a case where the partial payment times out. Which other cases do you mean? Of course the total number of possible test cases is large, but I tried to cover at least the ones that usually occur.

// resolution.
htlc, ok := invoice.Htlcs[key]
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("htlc %v not found", key)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can this ever happen though?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think so. Perhaps we will do invoice cleanup in the future?

bhandras and others added 3 commits December 11, 2019 16:08
This commit introduces PriorityQueue, which is a general, heap
based priority queue, and PriorityQueueItem which is an interface
that concrete priority queue items must implement.
This implementation is encapsulated, users do not need to use any
other package for full functionality.
PriorityQueue exports the usual public methids: Push, Pop, Top,
Empty and Len. For full documentaton consult the priority_queue.go,
for usage: priority_queue_test.go
Copy link
Collaborator

@bhandras bhandras left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@joostjager joostjager merged commit 62dadff into lightningnetwork:master Dec 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
amp HTLC payments Related to invoices/payments
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants