Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged

Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec

Conversation

@jkczyz

@jkczyzjkczyz commented Sep 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.

@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 19, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.

@jkczyz

jkczyz commented Sep 19, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:

lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745

@codecov

codecovBot commented Sep 19, 2025•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️

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.

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt added this to the 0.2 milestone Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented Sep 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino reviewed Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Comment on lines +9618 to +9620
// - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
// sent and received:
// - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.

@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.

@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt reviewed Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Comment on lines +9618 to +9620
// - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
// sent and received:
// - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt approved these changes Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt merged commit 805edc2 into lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025
23 of 25 checks passed
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino
, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino

, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino

, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino

, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino

, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino

, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino

, '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
Update next_funding spec requirements - #4098
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Sep 25, 2025
Merged
Update next_funding spec requirements#4098
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
jkczyz:2025-09-next-funding-spec
Conversation
@jkczyz
@jkczyzjkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
The requirements for the next_funding TLV in channel_reestablish were changed in lightning/bolts#1289. The corresponding changes were in #3886, but that PR predated the spec changes. This PR updates the implementation to reflect the spec PR.
@jkczyz
Update commitment_signed retransmission for next_funding
9c2ead2
The next_funding TLV is included in channel_reestablish when either
tx_signatures or commitment_signed is needed for an interactive-tx
session. This commit largely includes the spec requirements in the
comments, including when to retransmit commitment_signed. But it also
adds an additional check that tx_signatures has not yet been received.
@jkczyz
Document some channel_reestablish spec requirements
e083a2d
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino 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.
@jkczyz
jkczyz
commented
Sep 19, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
It's unclear to me if and where we'd need to change the implementation to reflect the following spec change:
lightning/bolts@1d25dd1#diff-ed04ca2c673fd6aabde69389511fa9ee60cb44d6b2ef6c88b549ffaa753d6afeL2729-R2745
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
Sep 19, 2025•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 88.72%. Comparing base (3564646) to head (e083a2d).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on main.
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs85.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4098 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.81% 88.72% +0.90% 
==========================================
Files 176 176 Lines 131770 132779 +1009 Branches 131770 132779 +1009 ==========================================
+ Hits 115719 117804 +2085 + Misses 13416 12290 -1126 - Partials 2635 2685 +50 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing21.54% <15.00%> (-0.06%)⬇️
tests88.56% <85.00%> (+0.90%)⬆️
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.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
added this to the 0.2 milestone
Sep 20, 2025
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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.

1 similar comment

@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
Sep 22, 2025

Copy link


Copy Markdown

🔔 1st Reminder
Hey @TheBlueMatt@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
wpaulino
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 22, 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.

While testing, I noticed there's an overlap between this requirement and my_current_funding_locked when splicing. If we open a fresh channel and immediately splice it, we'll retransmit channel_ready after a reconnect since the commitments have not advanced even though we already locked the splice (either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via my_current_funding_locked).
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
@wpaulinowpaulinoSep 23, 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.

We can probably leave this for a follow-up? Relevant discussion in the spec: lightning/bolts#1160 (comment)
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 25, 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.

Sure, will land this then, its otherwise trivial.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
reviewed
Sep 23, 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.

LGTM, modulo @wpaulino's comment.
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+9618
 to 
+9620

 // - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it
 // sent and received:
 // - MUST retransmit `channel_ready`.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattSep 23, 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.

Mmm, probably worth skipping the channel_ready if we have a splice indicator in the reestablish.
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
approved these changes
Sep 25, 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.

Landing as its mostly comment changes and one simple change.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 805edc2
into
lightningdevkit:mainSep 25, 2025

23 of 25 checks passed

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

Reviewers

@wpaulinowpaulinowpaulino left review comments
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@jkczyz@ldk-reviews-bot@TheBlueMatt@wpaulino