[Splicing] Add reserve check to splicing by optout21 · Pull Request #3641 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 · 2025-03-04T11:56:27Z

This is a continuation of #3407, adds proper channel balance/reserve check, when handling splice_ack (on initiator side).

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-04T11:56:29Z

👋 Hi! This PR is now in draft status.
I'll wait to assign reviewers until you mark it as ready for review.
Just convert it out of draft status when you're ready for review!

optout21 · 2025-03-04T12:24:09Z

Relevant comments from #3407:

value_to_self_msat doesn't include fees and anchor outputs value, to be considered similar to how it's done in build_commitment_transaction
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407 (comment)

Relevant method: check_splice_balances_meet_v2_reserve_requirements

optout21 · 2025-03-04T19:41:37Z

Suggestions implemented; for reserve requirement check, the balance is adjusted with fees and eventual anchor output value (see 6ec1a19).
On hold, waiting for #3407 to land first.

optout21 · 2025-03-08T07:37:27Z

Rebased, post #3407 .

codecov · 2025-03-08T07:45:52Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.93%. Comparing base (1e1d300) to head (b2d874c).
⚠️ Report is 753 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3641 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.94% 88.93% -0.02% 
==========================================
Files 174 174 Lines 124200 124539 +339 Branches 124200 124539 +339 ==========================================
+ Hits 110471 110760 +289 - Misses 11253 11283 +30 - Partials 2476 2496 +20

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzing	`22.18% <40.00%> (-0.46%)`	⬇️
tests	`88.76% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-11T18:26:11Z

👋 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.

optout21 · 2025-03-20T09:51:19Z

Fixes done:

Fix Pre&Post reserve check
Assert that there are no pending HTLCs
Move splice reserve checks to FundedChannel, because few other fields are needed (is_v2, reserves from funding)
Fix Msat-Sat discrepancy in balance/reserve check, which I just noticed
Handle originally-v1 channel pre-splice reserve specially.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-22T09:51:58Z

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2025-03-24T09:52:22Z

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @jkczyz @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:49:35Z

+ return Err(post_channel_reserve_sats);
+ }
+ } else {
+ if pre_balance >= self.funding.holder_selected_channel_reserve_satoshis * 1000 {


We also need to check if the channel has never been spliced before to use the v1 reserve

I'm not sure how to do that, I suppose is_v2_established() does not change. @wpaulino

If self.funding.splice_parent_funding_txid is not set and the channel ID is the same as the funding outpoint, then we use the v1 reserve

wpaulino · 2025-03-24T17:51:05Z

+	/// Pending HTLCs are not taken into account, this method should be used when there is no such,
+	/// e.g. in quiscence state
+	#[cfg(splicing)]
+	fn compute_balances_less_fees(&self, channel_value_sats: u64, value_to_self_msat: u64, is_local: bool) -> (u64, u64) {


@tankyleo is going to split up the existing build_commitment_transaction method into two, so that we can get the balances without building the commitment transaction. Once that lands, we can use it here in favor of this to avoid the code duplication.

@tankyleo , @wpaulino any update on this?

See build_commitment_stats

optout21 · 2025-08-04T11:17:09Z

Rebased to recent main (post- #3736 ), more cleanup needed.

TheBlueMatt · 2025-11-13T20:15:54Z

This work was taken as a part of splicing landing in 0.2. 🎉

optout21 mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2025
[Splicing] Partial, handle splice_init & splice_ack messages #3407
Merged

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch 2 times, most recently from e34d33c to 6ec1a19Compare March 4, 2025 19:37

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch from 6ec1a19 to 8ac1467Compare March 8, 2025 07:37

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch from 8ac1467 to b073d8cCompare March 10, 2025 16:56

optout21 changed the title ~~[Draft][Splicing] Add reserve check to splicing~~[Splicing] Add reserve check to splicingMar 11, 2025

optout21 marked this pull request as ready for review March 11, 2025 08:40

optout21 requested a review from wpaulino March 11, 2025 08:40

wpaulino reviewed Mar 11, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch from b073d8c to f406c53Compare March 12, 2025 10:39

jkczyz self-requested a review March 12, 2025 13:37

optout21 marked this pull request as draft March 19, 2025 23:38

optout21 commented Mar 20, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated

optout21 marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2025 09:51

optout21 requested a review from wpaulino March 20, 2025 09:51

wpaulino reviewed Mar 24, 2025
View reviewed changes

jkczyz reviewed Mar 24, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated

tankyleo mentioned this pull request Mar 24, 2025
Add ChannelContext::get_commitment_stats#3682
Merged

tankyleo reviewed Apr 2, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

optout21 mentioned this pull request Mar 11, 2025
Dual-funded channels and Splicing Project Tracking #1621
Closed
7 tasks

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch from 47f4737 to eb1fc46Compare June 25, 2025 18:27

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch from 793e8b7 to a0fe395Compare June 26, 2025 07:22

graphite-appBot reviewed Jun 26, 2025
View reviewed changes

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated

optout21 marked this pull request as draft June 26, 2025 11:46

optout21 mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2025
[Splicing] Tx negotiation during splicing #3736
Merged

optout21 marked this pull request as ready for review June 26, 2025 13:43

ldk-reviews-bot requested a review from valentinewallace June 26, 2025 13:44

valentinewallace removed their request for review June 26, 2025 14:55

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch 2 times, most recently from d4a0ffa to c69a2cbCompare July 1, 2025 17:10

optout21 marked this pull request as draft July 2, 2025 18:12

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch 7 times, most recently from c78211b to 858ded0Compare August 4, 2025 11:13

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch 5 times, most recently from 951f14d to 3aab4a1Compare August 7, 2025 17:22

optout21 added 4 commits August 7, 2025 19:24

Add check for channel reserve
ba195ce

Consider fees and anchor in balances when checking reserve requirements
a5fa952

fix Change the order of the 2 check methods
863ec36

fix Use v2 reserve condition for spliced-from-v1 v2 channels as well
b2d874c

optout21 force-pushed the splice-reserve-check branch from 3aab4a1 to b2d874cCompare August 7, 2025 17:25

TheBlueMatt closed this Nov 13, 2025