Skip to content
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

Expose amount forwarded in PaymentForwarded event #2136

Conversation

marctyndel
Copy link
Contributor

This PR adds the amount forwarded to PaymentForwarded events.

We'd like this value for analytics. At the moment I've been computing it using fee_earned_msat and the outbound channel's forwarding policy, but this introduces rounding error (and I think could occasionally be incorrect if the policy was recently updated but not yet propagated).

@marctyndel marctyndel force-pushed the 2023-03-paymentforwarded-expose-amount-forwarded branch from 6823642 to 3ad0f09 Compare March 28, 2023 16:47
TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt previously approved these changes Mar 28, 2023
@@ -4151,6 +4151,7 @@ where
claim_from_onchain_tx: from_onchain,
prev_channel_id,
next_channel_id,
amount_forwarded_msat: forwarded_htlc_value_msat,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ha, that was easy

@@ -603,6 +603,9 @@ pub enum Event {
/// If this is `true`, the forwarded HTLC was claimed by our counterparty via an on-chain
/// transaction.
claim_from_onchain_tx: bool,
/// The final amount forwarded, in milli-satoshis, after the fee is deducted.
/// The caveat described above the `fee_earned_msat` field applies here as well.
amount_forwarded_msat: Option<u64>,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a name that more clearly indicates this is the outbound amount we forwarded downstream, rather than the amount we received? I think this is fine just want to make sure we don't see anything obviously better, I don't have any ideas, though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Something like amount_outbound_forwarded_msat?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

maybe outgoing_amount_forwarded_msat? 🤷

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Up to you @marctyndel.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Going with a blend of the above: outbound_amount_forwarded_msat (because HTLCIntercepted, also uses the word "outbound"...I do see "outgoing" is used elsewhere but at a glance not in anything exposed)

@@ -603,6 +603,9 @@ pub enum Event {
/// If this is `true`, the forwarded HTLC was claimed by our counterparty via an on-chain
/// transaction.
claim_from_onchain_tx: bool,
/// The final amount forwarded, in milli-satoshis, after the fee is deducted.
/// The caveat described above the `fee_earned_msat` field applies here as well.
amount_forwarded_msat: Option<u64>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

maybe outgoing_amount_forwarded_msat? 🤷

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

Feel free to squash the fixup commit(s) down when you next push.

@marctyndel marctyndel force-pushed the 2023-03-paymentforwarded-expose-amount-forwarded branch from 6b3b0c9 to cf3c211 Compare March 29, 2023 16:58
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 29, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 80.00% and project coverage change: -0.04 ⚠️

Comparison is base (723c1a6) 91.40% compared to head (6b3b0c9) 91.37%.

❗ Current head 6b3b0c9 differs from pull request most recent head ee2cb8e. Consider uploading reports for the commit ee2cb8e to get more accurate results

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2136      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.40%   91.37%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         102      102              
  Lines       49736    49568     -168     
  Branches    49736    49568     -168     
==========================================
- Hits        45461    45291     -170     
- Misses       4275     4277       +2     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/functional_test_utils.rs 92.59% <ø> (ø)
lightning/src/events/mod.rs 32.31% <33.33%> (+0.18%) ⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 89.15% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs 98.24% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@@ -1780,7 +1780,7 @@ macro_rules! expect_payment_forwarded {
let events = $node.node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
match events[0] {
Event::PaymentForwarded { fee_earned_msat, prev_channel_id, claim_from_onchain_tx, next_channel_id } => {
Event::PaymentForwarded { fee_earned_msat, prev_channel_id, claim_from_onchain_tx, next_channel_id, .. } => {
Copy link
Contributor Author

@marctyndel marctyndel Mar 29, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Question: for this test macro, if I add the new field, I get stuck trying to update the mid_update_fulfill_dance macro, because I can't see how to get the amount. I notice that fee is obtained there in a perhaps indirect way, by getting the forwarding_fee_base_msat from the channel config (meaning the test is run with 0 proportional fees), which suggests getting the amount from the HTLC might not straightforward here? Or I might be missing something.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, yea, you could do a few different things - you could add a new macro variant (ie the top level ($node,,, thing you can just add another one with a new parameter), you could indeed try to deduce the correct amount based on the fee fetched from the channel (though a few tests will fail that), or you could just not worry about it. The code here is simple enough and there are at least a few tests which exercise it, so I'm admittedly not super worried about ensuring we have Maximal Test Coverage of it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Then if everyone's okay with it I'll go with the "just not worry about it" option

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt previously approved these changes Mar 29, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally looks good to me, just some minor remarks/suggestions.

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@dunxen dunxen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice one! :)

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt merged commit 783e818 into lightningdevkit:main Mar 30, 2023
@marctyndel marctyndel deleted the 2023-03-paymentforwarded-expose-amount-forwarded branch March 30, 2023 20:07
k0k0ne pushed a commit to bitlightlabs/rust-lightning that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2024
0.0.115 - Apr 24, 2023 - "Rebroadcast the Bugfixes"

API Updates
===========

 * The MSRV of the main LDK crates has been increased to 1.48 (lightningdevkit#2107).
 * Attempting to claim an un-expired payment on a channel which has closed no
   longer fails. The expiry time of payments is exposed via
   `PaymentClaimable::claim_deadline` (lightningdevkit#2148).
 * `payment_metadata` is now supported in `Invoice` deserialization, sending,
   and receiving (via a new `RecipientOnionFields` struct) (lightningdevkit#2139, lightningdevkit#2127).
 * `Event::PaymentFailed` now exposes a failure reason (lightningdevkit#2142).
 * BOLT12 messages now support stateless generation and validation (lightningdevkit#1989).
 * The `NetworkGraph` is now pruned of stale data after RGS processing (lightningdevkit#2161).
 * Max inbound HTLCs in-flight can be changed in the handshake config (lightningdevkit#2138).
 * `lightning-transaction-sync` feature `esplora-async-https` was added (lightningdevkit#2085).
 * A `ChannelPending` event is now emitted after the initial handshake (lightningdevkit#2098).
 * `PaymentForwarded::outbound_amount_forwarded_msat` was added (lightningdevkit#2136).
 * `ChannelManager::list_channels_by_counterparty` was added (lightningdevkit#2079).
 * `ChannelDetails::feerate_sat_per_1000_weight` was added (lightningdevkit#2094).
 * `Invoice::fallback_addresses` was added to fetch `bitcoin` types (lightningdevkit#2023).
 * The offer/refund description is now exposed in `Invoice{,Request}` (lightningdevkit#2206).

Backwards Compatibility
=======================

 * Payments sent with the legacy `*_with_route` methods on LDK 0.0.115+ will no
   longer be retryable via the LDK 0.0.114- `retry_payment` method (lightningdevkit#2139).
 * `Event::PaymentPathFailed::retry` was removed and will always be `None` for
    payments initiated on 0.0.115 which fail on an earlier version (lightningdevkit#2063).
 * `Route`s and `PaymentParameters` with blinded path information will not be
   readable on prior versions of LDK. Such objects are not currently constructed
   by LDK, but may be when processing BOLT12 data in a coming release (lightningdevkit#2146).
 * Providing `ChannelMonitorUpdate`s generated by LDK 0.0.115 to a
   `ChannelMonitor` on 0.0.114 or before may panic (lightningdevkit#2059). Note that this is
   in general unsupported, and included here only for completeness.

Bug Fixes
=========

 * Fixed a case where `process_events_async` may `poll` a `Future` which has
   already completed (lightningdevkit#2081).
 * Fixed deserialization of `u16` arrays. This bug may have previously corrupted
   the historical buckets in a `ProbabilisticScorer`. Users relying on the
   historical buckets may wish to wipe their scorer on upgrade to remove corrupt
   data rather than waiting on it to decay (lightningdevkit#2191).
 * The `process_events_async` task is now `Send` and can thus be polled on a
   multi-threaded runtime (lightningdevkit#2199).
 * Fixed a missing macro export causing
   `impl_writeable_tlv_based_enum{,_upgradable}` calls to not compile (lightningdevkit#2091).
 * Fixed compilation of `lightning-invoice` with both `no-std` and serde (lightningdevkit#2187)
 * Fix an issue where the `background-processor` would not wake when a
   `ChannelMonitorUpdate` completed asynchronously, causing delays (lightningdevkit#2090).
 * Fix an issue where `process_events_async` would exit immediately (lightningdevkit#2145).
 * `Router` calls from the `ChannelManager` now call `find_route_with_id` rather
   than `find_route`, as was intended and described in the API (lightningdevkit#2092).
 * Ensure `process_events_async` always exits if any sleep future returns true,
   not just if all sleep futures repeatedly return true (lightningdevkit#2145).
 * `channel_update` messages no longer set the disable bit unless the peer has
   been disconnected for some time. This should resolve cases where channels are
   disabled for extended periods of time (lightningdevkit#2198).
 * We no longer remove CLN nodes from the network graph for violating the BOLT
   spec in some cases after failing to pay through them (lightningdevkit#2220).
 * Fixed a debug assertion which may panic under heavy load (lightningdevkit#2172).
 * `CounterpartyForceClosed::peer_msg` is now wrapped in UntrustedString (lightningdevkit#2114)
 * Fixed a potential deadlock in `funding_transaction_generated` (lightningdevkit#2158).

Security
========

 * Transaction re-broadcasting is now substantially more aggressive, including a
   new regular rebroadcast feature called on a timer from the
   `background-processor` or from `ChainMonitor::rebroadcast_pending_claims`.
   This should substantially increase transaction confirmation reliability
   without relying on downstream `TransactionBroadcaster` implementations for
   rebroadcasting (lightningdevkit#2203, lightningdevkit#2205, lightningdevkit#2208).
 * Implemented the changes from BOLT PRs lightningdevkit#1031, lightningdevkit#1032, and lightningdevkit#1040 which resolve a
   privacy vulnerability which allows an intermediate node on the path to
   discover the final destination for a payment (lightningdevkit#2062).

In total, this release features 110 files changed, 11928 insertions, 6368
deletions in 215 commits from 21 authors, in alphabetical order:
 * Advait
 * Alan Cohen
 * Alec Chen
 * Allan Douglas R. de Oliveira
 * Arik Sosman
 * Elias Rohrer
 * Evan Feenstra
 * Jeffrey Czyz
 * John Cantrell
 * Lucas Soriano del Pino
 * Marc Tyndel
 * Matt Corallo
 * Paul Miller
 * Steven
 * Steven Williamson
 * Steven Zhao
 * Tony Giorgio
 * Valentine Wallace
 * Wilmer Paulino
 * benthecarman
 * munjesi
Sign up for free to 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.

6 participants