feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif
, '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

feat: send paykit payment proofs - #1178

Merged
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

feat: send paykit payment proofs#1178
jvsena42 merged 8 commits into
masterfrom
codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android

Conversation

@ben-kaufman

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR sends a Paykit payment proof back to the requester after Bitkit successfully pays an incoming private payment request.

Description

  1. Persists the payer identity, request, and selected endpoint before request acceptance, then associates the Lightning payment hash before sending so restart recovery keeps the correct correlation.
  2. Persists successful on-chain transaction IDs and validated Lightning preimages before submitting them against the original one-time request and exact endpoint.
  3. Uses Paykit's durable private outbox, retries incomplete submissions during normal request refresh, and suppresses duplicate proofs already recorded by the SDK.
  4. Preserves earlier in-flight correlations across retries, clears the request after one proof is queued, and reads the secure store directly so wallet wipes cannot resurrect cached proof state.
  5. Attempts immediate SDK delivery if persisting a completed proof fails, without adding any user-facing UI.

This PR is stacked on #1172. Companion iOS PR: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#683

Preview

N/A — there are no UI changes.

QA Notes

Manual Tests

  • 1. Android → create a private request for iOS → iOS receives and pays on regtest: Android records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.
  • 2. iOS → create a private request for Android → Android receives and pays on regtest: iOS records the proof against the exact request, endpoint, and transaction ID.

Automated Checks

  • PaykitPaymentProofRepoTest.kt: 8 tests cover restart retry, duplicate suppression, invalid Lightning preimage rejection, failed-payment cleanup, exact on-chain proof submission, overlapping retries, wallet-store clearing, and completed-proof persistence failure.
  • AppViewModelSendFlowTest.kt: covers proof persistence before private-list consumption and request acceptance, plus successful and failed payment lifecycle handling.
  • Full Android unit tests and focused proof/send-flow tests passed.
  • Detekt passed with only pre-existing unrelated findings.
  • git diff --check passed.

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from b2af2d9 to a6bd188CompareAugust 24, 2026 18:33

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Two Lightning test gaps are missing:

  • Crash recovery after an associated hash never exercises the LDK lookup, so a broken preimage path would not fail.
  • Incoming-request send never asserts prepare, associate, pending keep, or fail-plus-cancel, so a skipped hash association would not fail.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 25, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

Looks good: associated-hash Lightning crash recovery now submits from an LDK succeeded payment, and incoming-request send keeps or clears the proof correlation as required.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2026
13 tasks
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android branch from 56ce990 to 531578eCompareAugust 27, 2026 17:25
@piotr-iohk

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Will test after conflicts are resolved.

Base automatically changed from codex/paykit-payment-request-ui-android to masterAugust 28, 2026 12:46
@jvsena42
jvsena42 dismissed ovitrif’s stale reviewAugust 28, 2026 12:46

The base branch was changed.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ben-kaufman conflicts

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 2 times, most recently from 9e4ee27 to 19823e6CompareAugust 31, 2026 13:10
@jvsena42
jvsena42 self-requested a review August 31, 2026 14:25
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/repositories/PaykitPaymentProofStore.kt Outdated
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
jvsena42

This comment was marked as resolved.

@jvsena42

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Root cause and logs for the disabled swipe in the review above.

Why it's disabled

SendConfirmScreen.kt:400 gates the control on:

enabled = uiState.isAmountInputValid &&!uiState.isFundingSourceLoading &&!isHardwareFeeLoading

isAmountInputValid defaults to false (AppViewModel.kt:4796), and the incoming-payment-request branch navigates to the confirm sheet without ever setting it (AppViewModel.kt:2798):

navigateToSendRoute(fromMainScanner, SendRoute.Confirm, SendEffect.NavigateToConfirm)
refreshOnchainSendIfNeeded()
estimateLightningRoutingFeesIfNeeded()
return

The sibling branch eight lines below (lnAmountSats > 0u, AppViewModel.kt:2806) does set it before its identical navigateToSendRoute call.

Confirmed on device

Two emulators on this branch build, each with its own pubky identity on the staging homeserver, added as contacts; B requested 16 000 sats from A.

  • The sheet opens with the swiper dimmed, and injected drags do not move the thumb at all.
  • One tap on the funding-source button — selectHardwareFundingSource and the savings branch both assign isAmountInputValid — flips it to full brightness, and the identical drag pays immediately.

Worth flagging that the funding-source toggle is only a workaround because that wallet had a paired Trezor. canSwitchFundingSource = availableFundingSources(state).size > 1 (AppViewModel.kt:2162), so with a single funding source there is no way to pay the request at all: the only control on the screen is dead.

Looks like a one-liner — assign isAmountInputValid = validateAmount(amount) in that branch before navigating, matching :2806.

The proof pipeline itself works once past this

Same run, payer side:

17:30:17.844 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:27.162 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'
17:30:28.764 INFO [PaykitPaymentProofRepo.kt:270] Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery
17:30:32.407 INFO [Keychain.kt:144] Upserted value for key 'PAYKIT_PENDING_PAYMENT_PROOFS'

That is prepare() writing the pending record, completeOnchainPayment() filling in txid + proofData, submitReady() queueing delivery, then cleanup. Receiver side picked it up over the encrypted link:

paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: receive_private_application_messages;
paykit_lib::encrypted_link::link: restore_encrypted_link; remote_pubkey=PublicKey("pubkyej5obc…") local_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet") remote_receiver_path=PaykitReceiverPath("bitkit/wallet")

and the request moved from "Waiting for … to pay" into the settled group. A force-stop and relaunch of the payer produced no re-submission and no leftover pending record, and there were no Paykit warnings or errors on either device.

@ben-kaufmanben-kaufman mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2026
2 tasks
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Fixed the disabled incoming-request swipe in 6d66ab6. The request branch validated the amount but did not persist that result, so Send Confirm kept the swipe disabled. It now writes the validation result before navigation, and the existing incoming payment request opens the existing confirm flow with its fixed amount test asserts that isAmountInputValid is true. The focused test and full unit suite pass.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The conflicts are resolved and the branch is current. It also now includes the proof-store/polling hardening and the disabled-swipe fix reported in the latest review. Please retest at 6d66ab6.

ovitrif
ovitrif previously approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from e9ce645 to ad132c8CompareSeptember 1, 2026 12:54
@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

The reconciliation finding is fixed in signed commit ad132c8. Each pending proof is now isolated, so one temporary submission failure does not stop later proofs, with a focused regression covering that sequence. @ovitrif please re-review the updated head when E2E finishes.

@piotr-iohk

piotr-iohk commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Retested latest revision, Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim (same session as ios #683).

Incoming request pay on Android goes to Confirm with the amount locked. That matches this side — the amount-pad leak is iOS only (see #683).

Request lists don’t match
Same session, both on TODAY:

  • Android: 2× 1000 + 26 000 + 25 000
  • iOS: 3× 1000 + 26 000 (no 25 000)

Not amount-keyed overwrite in the app list — IDs are paymentRequestId + counterparty + path. This device sent the 25k on-chain; iOS activity shows +25 000, but iOS is missing that request-history row. Android is missing one of the 1k rows iOS still has. Hypothesis: after fulfill, one side drops the row when localRole is missing/unknown (history mapping skips those). Avatars I vs A are just the contact names.

Screenshot (Payment Requests list):
Screenshot 2026-09-01 at 16 12 09

Logs:

logs-android.zip

Proofs still queued on the successful pays (LN + on-chain both ways). List drift looks like a follow-up, not a proofs blocker.

@ben-kaufman

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Thanks for confirming the Android amount path is correct. I also reran the clean cross-platform proof/history portion against the current Android and iOS heads: two requests succeeded in each direction, both apps ended with the same four history rows, and each remote request transitioned to paid after the payer logged durable proof-outbox acceptance. I could not reproduce a stuck proof or history divergence on clean state, so there is no speculative Android change for those observations. All Android checks are green on ad132c893.

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

The incoming-request swipe assignment in onScanOnchain still has no test that would fail if it were removed. The new isAmountInputValid assertion is on a lightning presentation that already sets that flag in onScanLightning.

Comment threadapp/src/main/java/to/bitkit/viewmodels/AppViewModel.kt
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch 6 times, most recently from 0a7f4e4 to c72a4c3CompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:07
@ben-kaufman
ben-kaufmanforce-pushed the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch from c72a4c3 to 10ff0dfCompareSeptember 1, 2026 19:08

@ovitrifovitrif 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.

utACK

@piotr-iohkpiotr-iohk 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.

QA LGTM.

Retested latest (10ff0df) Pixel emu ↔ iPhone 17 sim, regtest. 2 requests from each side (1k LN + 25k on-chain), all 4 paid.

  • Incoming request pay stays on Confirm, amount locked
  • Proofs queued after both LN pays and both on-chain pays (Queued a Paykit payment proof for private delivery)
  • No proof UI, as expected
  • No Failed to prepare/complete/reconcile or ignored-proof warnings

Payment Requests lists still diverge after the same session (3 rows each, different missing amount). Follow-up: #1219 (ios twin: synonymdev/bitkit-ios#723). Not a proofs blocker.

@jvsena42jvsena42 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jvsena42
jvsena42 merged commit 9698dea into masterSep 2, 2026
18 checks passed
@jvsena42
jvsena42 deleted the codex/paykit-payment-proofs-android branch September 2, 2026 10:16
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@ben-kaufman@piotr-iohk@jvsena42@ovitrif