[Splicing] Tx negotiation during splicing #3736
Conversation
|
👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer! |
optout21
force-pushed
the
splice-dual-tx4
branch
from
7f6dfbd to
c3778bc
Compare
1 similar comment
1 similar comment
1 similar comment
1 similar comment
1 similar comment
1 similar comment
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3736 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.73% 90.28% +0.55%
==========================================
Files 159 160 +1
Lines 128910 132032 +3122
Branches 128910 132032 +3122
==========================================
+ Hits 115676 119207 +3531
+ Misses 10536 10172 -364
+ Partials 2698 2653 -45 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
optout21
force-pushed
the
splice-dual-tx4
branch
3 times, most recently
from
88d2e83 to
866368d
Compare
|
Ready for a new round of review. I have addressed the comments, applied most of them. There is still one to-do (update channel reserve values), that I will do, but the rest is ready for review. |
|
Ready for a new round of review. All pending and newly raised comments addressed. |
|
Let us know when this is ready for another round, no need to wait on #3842 to get more review on this. |
optout21
force-pushed
the
splice-dual-tx4
branch
from
20233de to
e14f4c9
Compare
![graphite-app[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/158384?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
optout21
force-pushed
the
splice-dual-tx4
branch
from
e14f4c9 to
3eca72f
Compare
|
Commits squashed, rebased (post #3741), fmt. Ready for a new round of review. |
optout21
force-pushed
the
splice-dual-tx4
branch
3 times, most recently
from
59e9b23 to
3577418
Compare
| fn begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction<ES: Deref>( | ||
| &mut self, signer_provider: &SP, entropy_source: &ES, holder_node_id: PublicKey, | ||
| change_destination_opt: Option<ScriptBuf>, | ||
| is_initiator: bool, change_destination_opt: Option<ScriptBuf>, | ||
| prev_funding_input: Option<(TxIn, TransactionU16LenLimited)>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we just drop this commit and revisit once #3842 lands? Or we can just drop the prev_funding_input part for now.
|
🔔 1st Reminder Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
|
🔔 2nd Reminder Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
This is a simple rename, DualFundingContext to FundingNegotiationContext, to suggest that this is use not only in dual-funded channel open. Also rename the field dual_funding_context to funding_negotiation_context.
The begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction() method is extended with `is_initiator` parameter (splice initiator), and `prev_funding_input` optional parameter, containing the previous funding transaction, which will be added to the negotiation as an input by the initiator.
Introduce struct NegotiatingChannelView to perform transaction negotiation logic, on top of either PendingV2Channel (dual-funded channel open) or FundedChannel (splicing).
Fill the logic for including transaction negotiation during splicing, implement the functions: splice_channel, splice_init, splice_ack, funding_tx_constructed. Also extend the test case test_v1_splice_in with the steps for funding negotiation during splicing.
optout21
force-pushed
the
splice-dual-tx4
branch
from
3577418 to
586a094
Compare
|
Comments addressed, minor fixes. Ready for review. |
| fn begin_interactive_funding_tx_construction<ES: Deref>( | ||
| &mut self, signer_provider: &SP, entropy_source: &ES, holder_node_id: PublicKey, | ||
| change_destination_opt: Option<ScriptBuf>, | ||
| is_initiator: bool, change_destination_opt: Option<ScriptBuf>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we make is_initiator part of FundingNegotiationContext, it seems like we could just provide a reference of it to calculate_change_output_value to clean things up a bit.
| if let Some(ref mut pending_splice) = &mut self.pending_splice { | ||
| if let Some(ref mut funding) = &mut pending_splice.funding_scope { | ||
| if pending_splice.funding_negotiation_context.our_funding_satoshis != 0 | ||
| || pending_splice | ||
| .funding_negotiation_context | ||
| .their_funding_satoshis | ||
| .unwrap_or_default() != 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Somehow my comment here disappeared, but there's no need to check our/their_funding_satoshis, pending_splice.funding_scope being set implies those are also set.
| @@ -10028,9 +10110,26 @@ where | |||
| "Insufficient inputs for splicing; channel ID {}, err {}", | |||
| self.context.channel_id(), err, | |||
| )})?; | |||
| // Convert inputs | |||
| let mut funding_inputs = Vec::new(); | |||
| for (tx_in, tx, _w) in our_funding_inputs.into_iter() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can our_funding_inputs be an owned value without cloning now?
| self.funding.value_to_self_msat, | ||
| our_funding_contribution_satoshis, | ||
| ); | ||
| // TODO: Early check for reserve requirement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You still have a PR open for this that needs to be updated
| funded_channel.splice_ack( | ||
| msg, &self.signer_provider, &self.entropy_source, | ||
| &self.get_our_node_id(), &self.logger | ||
| ), chan_entry); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: extract splice_ack result into its var
Implementation of transaction negotiation during splicing.
Builds on 3407 and 3443.
No new phase,Funded(FundedChannel)is used throughout splicingFundedChannelandPendingV2Channelcan act as a transaction constructorPendingV2Channellogic is put behind a trait --FundingTxConstructorV2RenegotiatingScopeis used to store extra state during splicingFundingChannelcan act as aFundingTxConstructorV2, using the state fromRenegotiatingScope(if present)Since bothFundedChannelandFundingTxConstructorhas context(), context accessors are extracted into a common base trait,ChannelContextProvider(it is also shared byInitialRemoteCommitmentReceiver).(Also relevant: #3444)