+ #[test]
+ fn exact_fee_liquidity_limit() {
+ // Test that if, while walking the graph, we find a hop that has exactly enough liquidity
+ // for us, including later hop fees, we take it. In the first version of our MPP algorithm
+ // we calculated fees on a higher value, resulting in us ignoring such paths.
+ let (secp_ctx, net_graph_msg_handler, _, logger) = build_graph();
+ let (our_privkey, our_id, _, nodes) = get_nodes(&secp_ctx);
+
+ // We modify the graph to set the htlc_maximum of channel 2 to below the value we wish to
+ // send.
+ update_channel(&net_graph_msg_handler, &secp_ctx, &our_privkey, UnsignedChannelUpdate {
+ chain_hash: genesis_block(Network::Testnet).header.block_hash(),
+ short_channel_id: 2,
+ timestamp: 2,
+ flags: 0,
+ cltv_expiry_delta: 0,
+ htlc_minimum_msat: 0,
+ htlc_maximum_msat: OptionalField::Present(85_000),
+ fee_base_msat: 0,
+ fee_proportional_millionths: 0,
+ excess_data: Vec::new()
+ });
+
+ update_channel(&net_graph_msg_handler, &secp_ctx, &our_privkey, UnsignedChannelUpdate {
+ chain_hash: genesis_block(Network::Testnet).header.block_hash(),
+ short_channel_id: 12,
+ timestamp: 2,
+ flags: 0,
+ cltv_expiry_delta: (4 << 8) | 1,
+ htlc_minimum_msat: 0,
+ htlc_maximum_msat: OptionalField::Present(270_000),
+ fee_base_msat: 0,
+ fee_proportional_millionths: 1000000,
+ excess_data: Vec::new()
+ });
+
+ {
+ // Now, attempt to route 90 sats, which is exactly 90 sats at the last hop, plus the
+ // 200% fee charged channel 13 in the 1-to-2 direction.
+ let route = get_route(&our_id, &net_graph_msg_handler.network_graph.read().unwrap(), &nodes[2], None, None, &Vec::new(), 90_000, 42, Arc::clone(&logger)).unwrap();
+ assert_eq!(route.paths.len(), 1);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0].len(), 2);
+
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].pubkey, nodes[7]);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].short_channel_id, 12);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].fee_msat, 90_000*2);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].cltv_expiry_delta, (13 << 8) | 1);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].node_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(8));
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].channel_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(12));
+
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].pubkey, nodes[2]);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].short_channel_id, 13);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].fee_msat, 90_000);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].cltv_expiry_delta, 42);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].node_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(3));
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].channel_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(13));
+ }
+ }
+
+ #[test]
+ fn htlc_max_reduction_below_min() {
+ // Test that if, while walking the graph, we reduce the value being sent to meet an
+ // htlc_maximum_msat, we don't end up undershooting a later htlc_minimum_msat. In the
+ // initial version of MPP we'd accept such routes but reject them while recalculating fees,
+ // resulting in us thinking there is no possible path, even if other paths exist.
+ let (secp_ctx, net_graph_msg_handler, _, logger) = build_graph();
+ let (our_privkey, our_id, privkeys, nodes) = get_nodes(&secp_ctx);
+
+ // We modify the graph to set the htlc_minimum of channel 2 and 4 as needed - channel 2
+ // gets an htlc_maximum_msat of 80_000 and channel 4 an htlc_minimum_msat of 90_000. We
+ // then try to send 90_000.
+ update_channel(&net_graph_msg_handler, &secp_ctx, &our_privkey, UnsignedChannelUpdate {
+ chain_hash: genesis_block(Network::Testnet).header.block_hash(),
+ short_channel_id: 2,
+ timestamp: 2,
+ flags: 0,
+ cltv_expiry_delta: 0,
+ htlc_minimum_msat: 0,
+ htlc_maximum_msat: OptionalField::Present(80_000),
+ fee_base_msat: 0,
+ fee_proportional_millionths: 0,
+ excess_data: Vec::new()
+ });
+ update_channel(&net_graph_msg_handler, &secp_ctx, &privkeys[1], UnsignedChannelUpdate {
+ chain_hash: genesis_block(Network::Testnet).header.block_hash(),
+ short_channel_id: 4,
+ timestamp: 2,
+ flags: 0,
+ cltv_expiry_delta: (4 << 8) | 1,
+ htlc_minimum_msat: 90_000,
+ htlc_maximum_msat: OptionalField::Absent,
+ fee_base_msat: 0,
+ fee_proportional_millionths: 0,
+ excess_data: Vec::new()
+ });
+
+ {
+ // Now, attempt to route 90 sats, hitting the htlc_minimum on channel 4, but
+ // overshooting the htlc_maximum on channel 2. Thus, we should pick the (absurdly
+ // expensive) channels 12-13 path.
+ let route = get_route(&our_id, &net_graph_msg_handler.network_graph.read().unwrap(), &nodes[2], Some(InvoiceFeatures::known()), None, &Vec::new(), 90_000, 42, Arc::clone(&logger)).unwrap();
+ assert_eq!(route.paths.len(), 1);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0].len(), 2);
+
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].pubkey, nodes[7]);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].short_channel_id, 12);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].fee_msat, 90_000*2);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].cltv_expiry_delta, (13 << 8) | 1);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].node_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(8));
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][0].channel_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(12));
+
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].pubkey, nodes[2]);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].short_channel_id, 13);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].fee_msat, 90_000);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].cltv_expiry_delta, 42);
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].node_features.le_flags(), InvoiceFeatures::known().le_flags());
+ assert_eq!(route.paths[0][1].channel_features.le_flags(), &id_to_feature_flags(13));
+ }
+ }