+
+#[test]
+fn claimed_send_payment_idempotent() {
+ // Tests that `send_payment` (and friends) are (reasonably) idempotent.
+ let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
+ let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
+ let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None]);
+ let nodes = create_network(2, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
+
+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes(&nodes, 0, 1, channelmanager::provided_init_features(), channelmanager::provided_init_features()).2;
+
+ let (route, second_payment_hash, second_payment_preimage, second_payment_secret) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(nodes[0], nodes[1], 100_000);
+ let (first_payment_preimage, _, _, payment_id) = send_along_route(&nodes[0], route.clone(), &[&nodes[1]], 100_000);
+
+ macro_rules! check_send_rejected {
+ () => {
+ // If we try to resend a new payment with a different payment_hash but with the same
+ // payment_id, it should be rejected.
+ let send_result = nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, second_payment_hash, &Some(second_payment_secret), payment_id);
+ match send_result {
+ Err(PaymentSendFailure::DuplicatePayment) => {},
+ _ => panic!("Unexpected send result: {:?}", send_result),
+ }
+
+ // Further, if we try to send a spontaneous payment with the same payment_id it should
+ // also be rejected.
+ let send_result = nodes[0].node.send_spontaneous_payment(&route, None, payment_id);
+ match send_result {
+ Err(PaymentSendFailure::DuplicatePayment) => {},
+ _ => panic!("Unexpected send result: {:?}", send_result),
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ // Claim the payment backwards, but note that the PaymentSent event is still pending and has
+ // not been seen by the user. At this point, from the user perspective nothing has changed, so
+ // we must remain just as idempotent as we were before.
+ do_claim_payment_along_route(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1]]], false, first_payment_preimage);
+
+ for _ in 0..=IDEMPOTENCY_TIMEOUT_TICKS {
+ nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+ }
+
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ // Once the user sees and handles the `PaymentSent` event, we expect them to no longer call
+ // `send_payment`, and our idempotency guarantees are off - they should have atomically marked
+ // the payment complete. However, they could have called `send_payment` while the event was
+ // being processed, leading to a race in our idempotency guarantees. Thus, even immediately
+ // after the event is handled a duplicate payment should sitll be rejected.
+ expect_payment_sent!(&nodes[0], first_payment_preimage, Some(0));
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ // If relatively little time has passed, a duplicate payment should still fail.
+ nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ // However, after some time has passed (at least more than the one timer tick above), a
+ // duplicate payment should go through, as ChannelManager should no longer have any remaining
+ // references to the old payment data.
+ for _ in 0..IDEMPOTENCY_TIMEOUT_TICKS {
+ nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+ }
+
+ nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, second_payment_hash, &Some(second_payment_secret), payment_id).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ pass_along_route(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1]]], 100_000, second_payment_hash, second_payment_secret);
+ claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], second_payment_preimage);
+}
+
+#[test]
+fn abandoned_send_payment_idempotent() {
+ // Tests that `send_payment` (and friends) allow duplicate PaymentIds immediately after
+ // abandon_payment.
+ let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
+ let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
+ let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None]);
+ let nodes = create_network(2, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
+
+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes(&nodes, 0, 1, channelmanager::provided_init_features(), channelmanager::provided_init_features()).2;
+
+ let (route, second_payment_hash, second_payment_preimage, second_payment_secret) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(nodes[0], nodes[1], 100_000);
+ let (_, first_payment_hash, _, payment_id) = send_along_route(&nodes[0], route.clone(), &[&nodes[1]], 100_000);
+
+ macro_rules! check_send_rejected {
+ () => {
+ // If we try to resend a new payment with a different payment_hash but with the same
+ // payment_id, it should be rejected.
+ let send_result = nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, second_payment_hash, &Some(second_payment_secret), payment_id);
+ match send_result {
+ Err(PaymentSendFailure::DuplicatePayment) => {},
+ _ => panic!("Unexpected send result: {:?}", send_result),
+ }
+
+ // Further, if we try to send a spontaneous payment with the same payment_id it should
+ // also be rejected.
+ let send_result = nodes[0].node.send_spontaneous_payment(&route, None, payment_id);
+ match send_result {
+ Err(PaymentSendFailure::DuplicatePayment) => {},
+ _ => panic!("Unexpected send result: {:?}", send_result),
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ nodes[1].node.fail_htlc_backwards(&first_payment_hash);
+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_and_htlc_handling_failed!(nodes[1], [HTLCDestination::FailedPayment { payment_hash: first_payment_hash }]);
+
+ pass_failed_payment_back_no_abandon(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1]]], false, first_payment_hash);
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ // Until we abandon the payment, no matter how many timer ticks pass, we still cannot reuse the
+ // PaymentId.
+ for _ in 0..=IDEMPOTENCY_TIMEOUT_TICKS {
+ nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+ }
+ check_send_rejected!();
+
+ nodes[0].node.abandon_payment(payment_id);
+ get_event!(nodes[0], Event::PaymentFailed);
+
+ // However, we can reuse the PaymentId immediately after we `abandon_payment`.
+ nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, second_payment_hash, &Some(second_payment_secret), payment_id).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ pass_along_route(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1]]], 100_000, second_payment_hash, second_payment_secret);
+ claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], second_payment_preimage);
+}