None => return None,
};
let payment_relay: PaymentRelay = match details.counterparty.forwarding_info {
- Some(forwarding_info) => forwarding_info.into(),
+ Some(forwarding_info) => match forwarding_info.try_into() {
+ Ok(payment_relay) => payment_relay,
+ Err(()) => return None,
+ },
None => return None,
};
- // Avoid exposing esoteric CLTV expiry deltas
- let cltv_expiry_delta = match payment_relay.cltv_expiry_delta {
- 0..=40 => 40u32,
- 41..=80 => 80u32,
- 81..=144 => 144u32,
- 145..=216 => 216u32,
- _ => return None,
- };
-
+ let cltv_expiry_delta = payment_relay.cltv_expiry_delta as u32;
let payment_constraints = PaymentConstraints {
max_cltv_expiry: tlvs.payment_constraints.max_cltv_expiry + cltv_expiry_delta,
htlc_minimum_msat: details.inbound_htlc_minimum_msat.unwrap_or(0),
}
}
- // Means we succesfully traversed from the payer to the payee, now
+ // Means we successfully traversed from the payer to the payee, now
// save this path for the payment route. Also, update the liquidity
// remaining on the used hops, so that we take them into account
// while looking for more paths.
fn do_min_htlc_overpay_violates_max_htlc(blinded_payee: bool) {
// Test that if overpaying to meet a later hop's min_htlc and causes us to violate an earlier
// hop's max_htlc, we don't consider that candidate hop valid. Previously we would add this hop
- // to `targets` and build an invalid path with it, and subsquently hit a debug panic asserting
+ // to `targets` and build an invalid path with it, and subsequently hit a debug panic asserting
// that the used liquidity for a hop was less than its available liquidity limit.
let secp_ctx = Secp256k1::new();
let logger = Arc::new(ln_test_utils::TestLogger::new());
}
break;
}
- // If we couldn't find a path with a higer amount, reduce and try again.
+ // If we couldn't find a path with a higher amount, reduce and try again.
score_amt /= 100;
}