Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged

Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

Conversation

@wpaulino

@wpaulinowpaulino commented May 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.

@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino added this to the 0.3 milestone May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino requested a review from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino self-assigned this May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented May 20, 2026•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.

@ldk-claude-review-bot

ldk-claude-review-bot commented May 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:

Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.

Old code path (buggy):

  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck

New code path (fixed):

  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends

The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.

No issues found.

@codecov

codecovBot commented May 21, 2026•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).

Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)

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
jkczyz approved these changes May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Comment on lines +14651 to +14652
// Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
// initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.

@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.

@ldk-reviews-bot

ldk-reviews-bot commented May 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!

Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt merged commit 09b6e73 into lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026
23 of 24 checks passed
@wpaulino
wpaulino deleted the avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu branch May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2026
Open
50 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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

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

Skip to content
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu - #4630
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
May 22, 2026
Merged
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu#4630
TheBlueMatt merged 1 commit into
lightningdevkit:mainfrom 
wpaulino:avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu
Conversation
@wpaulino
@wpaulinowpaulino
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulino
Avoid splice checks when responding to stfu
dbb1c96
Only gate local quiescence initiation on splice RBF eligibility. If the
counterparty initiated quiescence first, respond with non-initiator stfu
once pending channel updates are clear.
@wpaulinowpaulino
added this to the 0.3 milestone
May 20, 2026
@wpaulino
wpaulino
requested a review
from jkczyzMay 20, 2026 23:15
@wpaulinowpaulino
self-assigned this
May 20, 2026
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 20, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz 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.
@ldk-claude-review-bot
ldk-claude-review-bot
commented
May 20, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
I've now thoroughly reviewed every hunk in this diff. Let me trace through the key scenario to verify correctness:
Scenario: Node 0 has a pending quiescent_action (Splice at floor feerate) but can't initiate because RBF feerate is too low. Node 1 sends stfu.
Old code path (buggy):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks quiescent_action → finds Splice → RBF feerate check fails → returns None
  3. Node 0 never responds to Node 1's stfu — stuck
New code path (fixed):
  1. stfu() handler sets REMOTE_STFU_SENT, calls try_send_stfu()
  2. try_send_stfu() checks pending updates (passes), then checks is_remote_stfu_sent() → true → enters non-initiator path
  3. Clears REMOTE_STFU_SENT, sets QUIESCENT, returns Stfu { initiator: false }
  4. quiescent_action stays pending for retry after quiescence ends
The fix is correct. The guard at line 14624 guarantees the else branch is unreachable (if is_remote_stfu_sent() is false, then quiescent_action.is_some() must be true). The test exercises exactly this scenario.
No issues found.
@codecov
codecovBot
commented
May 21, 2026•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Codecov Report
❌ Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

✅ Project coverage is 86.63%. Comparing base (ee456a8) to head (dbb1c96).
Files with missing linesPatch %Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs80.00%3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #4630 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 28.02% 86.63% +58.61% 
===========================================
Files 126 159 +33 Lines 69960 110500 +40540 Branches 69960 110500 +40540 ===========================================
+ Hits 19606 95735 +76129 + Misses 49020 12230 -36790 - Partials 1334 2535 +1201 
FlagCoverage Δ
fuzzing-fake-hashes6.62% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
fuzzing-real-hashes23.25% <0.00%> (-0.01%)⬇️
tests86.24% <80.00%> (?)
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
jkczyz
approved these changes
May 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs

Comment on lines

+14651
 to 
+14652

 // Since we may have also attempted to initiate quiescence but the counterparty
 // initiated first, we'll retry after we're no longer quiescent.
@jkczyzjkczyzMay 21, 2026

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.

IIUC, we would attempt to contribute as an acceptor, assuming we are both initiating for a splice.
@ldk-reviews-bot
ldk-reviews-bot
commented
May 21, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

👋 The first review has been submitted!
Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 09b6e73
into
lightningdevkit:mainMay 22, 2026

23 of 24 checks passed

@wpaulino
wpaulino
deleted the

avoid-splice-check-non-initiator-stfu

branch
May 22, 2026 19:41
@jkczyzjkczyz
mentioned this pull request
Jun 15, 2026

Open

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

Reviewers

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattTheBlueMatt approved these changes
@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

@wpaulinowpaulino

Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone

0.3

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

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