Merge initial and retry stfu send paths by wpaulino · Pull Request #4432 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino · 2026-02-20T23:43:31Z

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd
send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending.
The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not
fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we
merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a
test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's
fixed and does not regress.

Fixes#4429.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-20T23:43:33Z

👋 Thanks for assigning @TheBlueMatt 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.

codecov · 2026-02-21T01:28:50Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.62295% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.86%. Comparing base (62c7575) to head (1e57132).
⚠️ Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	97.91%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 85.87% 85.86% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 157 159 +2 Lines 103769 104295 +526 Branches 103769 104295 +526 ==========================================
+ Hits 89115 89558 +443 - Misses 12158 12234 +76 - Partials 2496 2503 +7

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	`85.86% <92.62%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

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.

jkczyz · 2026-02-23T18:50:38Z

- // TODO(splicing): If we didn't win quiescence, then we can contribute as an acceptor
- // instead of waiting for the splice to lock.


Probably no need to worry since this is handled in #4416, but looks like this TODO wasn't moved.

ldk-reviews-bot · 2026-02-23T18:55:54Z

👋 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.

In 15b04b5, we fixed a case in `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu` where we'd send `stfu` unnecessarily for a new splice while one is already pending. The same case also existed in `FundedChannel::send_stfu`, but was not fixed. There's no good reason for both of these methods to exist, so we merge them into one as `FundedChannel::try_send_stfu`. We also add a test that reproduces the `FundedChannel::send_stfu` issue to ensure it's fixed and does not regress.

With the introduction of `QuiescentAction`, the flag has essentially become duplicate state, so we opt to remove it in favor of just checking whether we have a pending `FundedChannel::quiescent_action`. Since the quiescent flags are never persisted, we can simply remove it and update the other flags, freeing up a bit for future use.

Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino added this to the 0.3 milestone Feb 20, 2026

wpaulino requested a review from jkczyz February 20, 2026 23:43

wpaulino self-assigned this Feb 20, 2026

jkczyz reviewed Feb 23, 2026
View reviewed changes

wpaulino added 3 commits February 23, 2026 16:33

Abandon pending quiescent action upon shutdown initiation
1e57132
Otherwise, now that we no longer have the awaiting quiescence state flag, we may end up sending `stfu` for a channel we intend to close.

wpaulino force-pushed the stfu-send-cleanups branch from cb92711 to 1e57132Compare February 24, 2026 00:35

wpaulino requested review from TheBlueMatt and jkczyz February 24, 2026 00:35

TheBlueMatt approved these changes Feb 24, 2026
View reviewed changes

jkczyz approved these changes Feb 24, 2026
View reviewed changes

jkczyz merged commit 144a24b into lightningdevkit:mainFeb 24, 2026
21 of 22 checks passed

wpaulino deleted the stfu-send-cleanups branch February 24, 2026 17:58

jkczyz mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2026
Splicing / Dual Funding #4284
Open
50 tasks