Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction - #1922

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts
Dec 19, 2022
Merged

Avoid redundant broadcast of local commitment transaction#1922
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-remaining-redundant-commitment-broadcasts

Conversation

@wpaulino

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.

There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a duplicate/conflict.

This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment broadcast.

The bulk of this patch is addressing a series of test failures resulting from the broadcast logic change.

This change follows the rationale of commit 62236c7 and addresses the
last remaining redundant local commitment broadcast.
There's no need to broadcast our local commitment transaction if we've
already seen a confirmed one as it'll be immediately rejected as a
duplicate/conflict.
This will also help prevent dispatching spurious events for bumping
commitment and HTLC transactions through anchor outputs since the
dispatch for said events follows the same flow as our usual commitment
broadcast.
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Base: 90.73% // Head: 90.73% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00%⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ff48f5d) compared to base (56afbf5).
Patch coverage: 91.13% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1922 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.73% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 94 94 Lines 49603 49538 -65 Branches 49603 49538 -65 ==========================================
- Hits 45006 44947 -59 + Misses 4597 4591 -6 
Impacted FilesCoverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs96.90% <89.23%> (-0.05%)⬇️
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.03% <100.00%> (+0.13%)⬆️
lightning/src/ln/monitor_tests.rs99.56% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs98.73% <100.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
lightning/src/ln/reorg_tests.rs100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/events.rs29.58% <0.00%> (+0.22%)⬆️
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs95.38% <0.00%> (+0.83%)⬆️

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 at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Only mostly related to this PR, but should we not also have a check like the one added here in provide_latest_holder_commitment_tx to refuse new updates after the monitor has seen a funding spend confirmed, whether that monitor has broadcasted a funding spend itself or not. Can/maybe should happen in a followup anyway.

@tnulltnull left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

Nice! I just recently ran into the issue of duplicate commitment broadcasts when testing force closes in LDK Lite (see lightningdevkit/ldk-node#33 (comment)). Of course, this won't fix the issue there, as we still would try to broadcast when we don't see the commitment on chain, but still nice to have!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@codecov-commenter@TheBlueMatt@tnull