// Assemble the set of keys we can use for signatures for our commitment_signed message.
let commit_tx_keys = chan_utils::TxCreationKeys::derive_new(&secp_ctx, &remote_point, &remote_delayed_payment_basepoint,
- &remote_htlc_basepoint, &local_revocation_basepoint, &local_htlc_basepoint).unwrap();
+ &remote_htlc_basepoint, &local_revocation_basepoint, &local_htlc_basepoint);
let res = {
let local_chan_lock = nodes[0].node.channel_state.lock().unwrap();
let events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { .. } => { },
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { .. } => { },
_ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
};
assert_eq!(events.len(), payments.len());
for (event, &(_, ref hash)) in events.iter().zip(payments.iter()) {
match event {
- &Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, .. } => {
+ &Event::PaymentClaimable { ref payment_hash, .. } => {
assert_eq!(*payment_hash, *hash);
},
_ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
// Assemble the set of keys we can use for signatures for our commitment_signed message.
let commit_tx_keys = chan_utils::TxCreationKeys::derive_new(&secp_ctx, &remote_point, &remote_delayed_payment_basepoint,
- &remote_htlc_basepoint, &local_revocation_basepoint, &local_htlc_basepoint).unwrap();
+ &remote_htlc_basepoint, &local_revocation_basepoint, &local_htlc_basepoint);
// Build the remote commitment transaction so we can sign it, and then later use the
// signature for the commitment_signed message.
commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[2], nodes[1], payment_event_11.commitment_msg, false);
expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[2]);
- expect_payment_received!(nodes[2], our_payment_hash_1, our_payment_secret_1, recv_value_1);
+ expect_payment_claimable!(nodes[2], our_payment_hash_1, our_payment_secret_1, recv_value_1);
// flush the htlcs in the holding cell
assert_eq!(commitment_update_2.update_add_htlcs.len(), 2);
let events = nodes[2].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 2);
match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, amount_msat, receiver_node_id, via_channel_id, via_user_channel_id: _ } => {
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, amount_msat, receiver_node_id, via_channel_id, via_user_channel_id: _ } => {
assert_eq!(our_payment_hash_21, *payment_hash);
assert_eq!(recv_value_21, amount_msat);
assert_eq!(nodes[2].node.get_our_node_id(), receiver_node_id.unwrap());
_ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
}
match events[1] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, amount_msat, receiver_node_id, via_channel_id, via_user_channel_id: _ } => {
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, amount_msat, receiver_node_id, via_channel_id, via_user_channel_id: _ } => {
assert_eq!(our_payment_hash_22, *payment_hash);
assert_eq!(recv_value_22, amount_msat);
assert_eq!(nodes[2].node.get_our_node_id(), receiver_node_id.unwrap());
assert!(nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events().is_empty());
expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[1]);
- expect_payment_received!(nodes[1], payment_hash_3, payment_secret_3, 100000);
+ expect_payment_claimable!(nodes[1], payment_hash_3, payment_secret_3, 100000);
// Note that as this RAA was generated before the delivery of the update_fulfill it shouldn't
// resolve the second HTLC from A's point of view.
check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[0]);
- expect_payment_received!(nodes[0], payment_hash_4, payment_secret_4, 10000);
+ expect_payment_claimable!(nodes[0], payment_hash_4, payment_secret_4, 10000);
claim_payment(&nodes[1], &[&nodes[0]], payment_preimage_4);
claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_preimage_3);
let events_2 = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events_2.len(), 1);
match events_2[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, amount_msat, receiver_node_id, via_channel_id, via_user_channel_id: _ } => {
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, amount_msat, receiver_node_id, via_channel_id, via_user_channel_id: _ } => {
assert_eq!(payment_hash_1, *payment_hash);
assert_eq!(amount_msat, 1_000_000);
assert_eq!(receiver_node_id.unwrap(), nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
let events_5 = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events_5.len(), 1);
match events_5[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, .. } => {
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { ref payment_hash, ref purpose, .. } => {
assert_eq!(payment_hash_2, *payment_hash);
match &purpose {
PaymentPurpose::InvoicePayment { payment_preimage, payment_secret, .. } => {
let mut events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
// Now do the relevant commitment_signed/RAA dances along the path, noting that the final
- // hop should *not* yet generate any PaymentReceived event(s).
+ // hop should *not* yet generate any PaymentClaimable event(s).
pass_along_path(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], 100000, our_payment_hash, Some(payment_secret), events.drain(..).next().unwrap(), false, None);
our_payment_hash
} else {
let events = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { .. } => {},
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { .. } => {},
_ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
}
nodes[1].node.claim_funds(payment_preimage_1);
commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[1], nodes[0], payment_event.commitment_msg, false);
expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[1]);
- expect_payment_received!(nodes[1], our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret, 100000);
+ expect_payment_claimable!(nodes[1], our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret, 100000);
}
let (route, our_payment_hash, _, our_payment_secret) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(nodes[0], nodes[1], 100000);
unwrap_send_err!(nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, our_payment_hash, &Some(our_payment_secret), PaymentId(our_payment_hash.0)), true, APIError::ChannelUnavailable { ref err },
let events = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { ref purpose, .. } => {
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { ref purpose, .. } => {
match &purpose {
PaymentPurpose::InvoicePayment { payment_preimage, .. } => {
claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_preimage.unwrap());
let events = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { purpose: PaymentPurpose::InvoicePayment { payment_preimage, payment_secret }, .. } => {
+ Event::PaymentClaimable { purpose: PaymentPurpose::InvoicePayment { payment_preimage, payment_secret }, .. } => {
assert!(payment_preimage.is_none());
assert_eq!(payment_secret, our_payment_secret);
// We don't actually have the payment preimage with which to claim this payment!
commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[1], nodes[0], payment_event.commitment_msg, false);
}
expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[1]);
- expect_payment_received!(nodes[1], our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret, 10_000);
+ expect_payment_claimable!(nodes[1], our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret, 10_000);
{
// Note that we use a different PaymentId here to allow us to duplicativly pay
#[test]
fn test_dup_htlc_second_fail_panic() {
// Previously, if we received two HTLCs back-to-back, where the second overran the expected
- // value for the payment, we'd fail back both HTLCs after generating a `PaymentReceived` event.
+ // value for the payment, we'd fail back both HTLCs after generating a `PaymentClaimable` event.
// Then, if the user failed the second payment, they'd hit a "tried to fail an already failed
// HTLC" debug panic. This tests for this behavior, checking that only one HTLC is auto-failed.
do_test_dup_htlc_second_rejected(true);
#[test]
fn test_double_partial_claim() {
- // Test what happens if a node receives a payment, generates a PaymentReceived event, the HTLCs
+ // Test what happens if a node receives a payment, generates a PaymentClaimable event, the HTLCs
// time out, the sender resends only some of the MPP parts, then the user processes the
- // PaymentReceived event, ensuring they don't inadvertently claim only part of the full payment
+ // PaymentClaimable event, ensuring they don't inadvertently claim only part of the full payment
// amount.
let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(4);
let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(4, &chanmon_cfgs);
});
send_along_route_with_secret(&nodes[0], route.clone(), &[&[&nodes[1], &nodes[3]], &[&nodes[2], &nodes[3]]], 15_000_000, payment_hash, payment_secret);
- // nodes[3] has now received a PaymentReceived event...which it will take some (exorbitant)
+ // nodes[3] has now received a PaymentClaimable event...which it will take some (exorbitant)
// amount of time to respond to.
// Connect some blocks to time out the payment
pass_along_path(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1], &nodes[3]], 15_000_000, payment_hash, Some(payment_secret), events.drain(..).next().unwrap(), false, None);
// At this point nodes[3] has received one half of the payment, and the user goes to handle
- // that PaymentReceived event they got hours ago and never handled...we should refuse to claim.
+ // that PaymentClaimable event they got hours ago and never handled...we should refuse to claim.
nodes[3].node.claim_funds(payment_preimage);
check_added_monitors!(nodes[3], 0);
assert!(nodes[3].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events().is_empty());
projects / rust-lightning / blobdiff