Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged

Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

Conversation

@wpaulino

@wpaulinowpaulino commented May 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.

This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented May 12, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

@wpaulino
wpaulino requested a review from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino mentioned this pull request May 12, 2025
Closed
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt reviewed May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.

@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.

@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.

Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.

Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?

@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.

tankyleo@9fd53e9

@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•
edited
Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.

So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented May 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 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.

@codecov

codecovBot commented May 13, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).
Report is 54 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3

☔ 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.

tankyleo
tankyleo reviewed May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes

@tankyleotankyleo 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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed the separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data branch from 7fefc6a to ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo reviewed May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes

@tankyleotankyleo 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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs Outdated
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 2, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino mentioned this pull request Jun 2, 2025
Merged
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed the separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data branch from ce146e7 to 2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino requested a review from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 4, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 7, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt merged commit 0848e7a into lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino deleted the separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data branch June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2025
Closed
7 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo
, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo

, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo

, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo

, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo

, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo

, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo

, '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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction - #3774
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Jun 8, 2025
Merged
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction#3774
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
We shouldn't track our HTLCSources within our
HolderCommitmentTransactions duplicatively for each FundingScope. With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions, but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions, which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the nondust_htlc_sources and dust_htlcs fields out from each FundingScope into the ChannelMonitor, such that they can be reused for each FundingScope. This remains as a backwards compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where it lives in memory is.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @tankyleo as a reviewer!

I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.

Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from TheBlueMattMay 12, 2025 16:55
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
May 12, 2025
 Closed

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
May 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM, a few minor questions and one comment about unnecessary clones.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
struct HolderCommitmentHTLCData {
	// These must be sorted in increasing output index order to match the expected order of the
	// HTLCs in the `CommitmentTransaction`.
	nondust_htlc_sources: Vec<HTLCSource>,
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattMay 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know we want to go ahead and assume that dust/non-dust are universal concepts, but do we want to also assume that HTLC ordering is fixed across splices? I know it is in non-custom-commitments, but we'd be assuming it in custom commitments which is yet another footgun in the API there. Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work. CC @tankyleo.
@tankyleotankyleoMay 13, 2025

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.

Yes happy to dig into relaxing this ordering requirement on top of this commit so we have a better idea of how much work that would take.
@wpaulinowpaulinoMay 30, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also not sure how big a difference it would be to avoid the assumption, presumably some nontrivial work.
Yeah it would be a good amount of work that would delay splicing if we wanted to pursue it now.
Has there been any progress on this @tankyleo?
@tankyleotankyleoMay 30, 2025

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.

@wpaulino This is the commit where I last stopped, clunky and ugly, passes the test suite.
tankyleo@9fd53e9
@tankyleotankyleoJun 2, 2025•

edited

Loading

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.

@TheBlueMatt At this point, I think 1) it would be non-trivial work to avoid this assumption 2) we have higher priority use-cases for custom commitments right now that do not need to relax this ordering.
So I think we can relax this ordering later. Let me know if you agree.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 12, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 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.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 13, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.75824% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 89.77%. Comparing base (5e7930f) to head (2f431d6).

Report is 54 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs91.75%7 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #3774 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.75% 89.77% +0.02% 
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1 Lines 128906 129114 +208 Branches 128906 129114 +208 ==========================================
+ Hits 115697 115915 +218 + Misses 10512 10499 -13 - Partials 2697 2700 +3 
☔ 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.
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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.

looking good ! some nits and questions, will take another pass.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
7fefc6a to
ce146e7CompareMay 30, 2025 02:01
tankyleo
tankyleo
reviewed
May 31, 2025
View reviewed changes
@tankyleotankyleo
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 ! Just got some nits, feel free to drop them.
Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
Outdated

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 2, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
Separate auxiliary HTLC data from holder commitment transaction
2f431d6
We shouldn't track our `HTLCSource`s within our
`HolderCommitmentTransaction`s duplicatively for each `FundingScope`.
With splicing, we may have alternative holder commitment transactions,
but they must all have the same set of non-dust and dust HTLCs as the
pre-spliced commitment transaction. Different sets of HTLCs are only
possible with a change to the dust limit on commitment transactions,
which the splicing protocol does not currently support.
This commit moves the `nondust_htlc_sources` and `dust_htlcs` fields
out from each `FundingScope` into the `ChannelMonitor`, such that they
can be reused for each `FundingScope`. This remains as a backwards
compatible change, the underlying stored data is not changed, but where
it lives in memory is.
@wpaulinowpaulino
mentioned this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
 Merged

@wpaulino
wpaulinoforce-pushed
the
separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data
branch
from
ce146e7 to
2f431d6CompareJune 2, 2025 23:54
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from tankyleoJune 2, 2025 23:54
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 4, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 2nd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Jun 7, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 3rd Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt! 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.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 0848e7a
into
lightningdevkit:mainJun 8, 2025
@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

separate-holder-commitment-htlc-data

branch
June 8, 2025 20:06
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 21, 2025

Closed

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@tankyleotankyleotankyleo approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@wpaulino@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@tankyleo