-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 415
Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures
event
#3889
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer! |
let witnesses: Vec<_> = transaction | ||
.input | ||
.into_iter() | ||
.filter_map(|input| if input.witness.is_empty() { None } else { Some(input.witness) }) | ||
.collect(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't have a strong opinion here, but seems we can avoid this by passing the Transaction
through and only collecting witnesses when we are ready to construct TxSignatures
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cool, yeah will look at changing this after fixups.
165d59d
to
8ca6d79
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3889 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.88% 88.82% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 165 165
Lines 118886 118971 +85
Branches 118886 118971 +85
==========================================
Hits 105676 105676
- Misses 10892 10976 +84
- Partials 2318 2319 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
1 similar comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
890633d
to
a1de384
Compare
🔔 2nd Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
7df5779
to
c8f981c
Compare
🔔 3rd Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if there was a problem rebasing, but some comments that had been marked resolved weren't fixed.
Yeah, they got lost on a rebase and somehow lost the commit. Rebased to get the one CI fix in. Fixing. |
c15f426
to
ff1489d
Compare
🔔 4th Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
The `FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures` event requests witnesses from the client for their contributed inputs to an interactively constructed transaction. The client calls `ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed` to provide the witnesses to LDK.
ff1489d
to
0a586e6
Compare
🔔 5th Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
🔔 6th Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
45u8.write(writer)?; | ||
// We never write out FundingTransactionReadyForSigning events as, upon disconnection, peers | ||
// drop any V2-established/spliced channels which have not yet exchanged the initial `commitment_signed`. | ||
// We only exhange the initial `commitment_signed` after the client calls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
exchange*
// We never write out FundingTransactionReadyForSigning events as, upon disconnection, peers | ||
// drop any V2-established/spliced channels which have not yet exchanged the initial `commitment_signed`. | ||
// We only exhange the initial `commitment_signed` after the client calls | ||
// `ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed` and ALWAYS before we send a `tx_signatures` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems wrong, we immediately send the initial commitment_signed
as soon as funding_tx_constructed
. We may want to wait to emit FundingTransactionReadyForSigning
until we exchange commitment_signed
though. Doing so may help unify the logic for when we need to regenerate the event upon channel_reestablish
.
fn verify_interactive_tx_signatures(&mut self, _witnesses: &Vec<Witness>) { | ||
if let Some(ref mut _signing_session) = self.interactive_tx_signing_session { | ||
// Check that sighash_all was used: | ||
// TODO(dual_funding): Check sig for sighash |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason this isn't done yet?
.provide_holder_witnesses(self.context.channel_id, witnesses) | ||
.map_err(|err| APIError::APIMisuseError { err })? | ||
{ | ||
if self.is_awaiting_initial_mon_persist() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the splicing case, we'd want to check is_monitor_update_in_progress
only
{ | ||
if self.is_awaiting_initial_mon_persist() { | ||
log_debug!(logger, "Not sending tx_signatures: a monitor update is in progress. Setting monitor_pending_tx_signatures."); | ||
self.context.monitor_pending_tx_signatures = Some(holder_tx_signatures); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's not store the signatures here as well and just keep them in the session instead
Cherry-picked from #3735 as it is relevant to splicing and will unblock testing after #3736 lands.
The
FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures
event requests witnesses from the client for their contributed inputs to an interactively constructed transaction.The client calls
ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed
to provide the witnesses to LDK.