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

Add static invoice creation utils to ChannelManager #3408

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

valentinewallace
Copy link
Contributor

  1. Add static invoice creation utilities as part of supporting the async payments BOLTs spec Support async payments in BOLT 12 lightning/bolts#1149.

  2. Take this opportunity to more easily test some code added in Support paying static invoices #3140 that went untested at the time. This is the bulk of the diff.

  3. Address a piece of feedback from Support paying static invoices #3140 regarding InvoiceRequests being unavailable when the time comes to send the async payment, cc Support paying static invoices #3140 (comment)

@jkczyz jkczyz self-requested a review November 14, 2024 18:35
Comment on lines +10066 to +10151
const SECONDS_PER_BLOCK: u32 = 10 * 60;
let relative_expiry_blocks = relative_expiry_seconds / SECONDS_PER_BLOCK;
let max_cltv_expiry = core::cmp::max(relative_expiry_blocks, CLTV_FAR_FAR_AWAY)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for reviewers: I'm not sure this is robust enough with block times being somewhat unreliable. Maybe it should be buffered?

Prior to this patch, we would take() the invoice request stored for
AwaitingInvoice outbound payments when retrying sending the invoice request
onion message. This doesn't work for async payments because we need to keep the
invoice request stored for inclusion in the payment onion. Therefore, clone it
instead of take()ing it.
Prior to this fix, we would attempt to mark outbound async payments as
abandoned but silently fail because they were in state AwaitingInvoice, which
the mark_abandoned utility doesn't currently work for. These payments would
eventually be removed by the remove_stale_payments method, but there would be a
delay in generating the PaymentFailed event.

Move to manually removing the outbound payment entry.
Useful for creating payment paths for static invoices which are typically
amount-less.
Will be useful for static invoices' blinded paths, which may have long
expiries. Rather than having a default max_cltv_expiry, we now base it
on the invoice expiry.
This context is stored in the blinded payment paths we put in static invoices
and is useful to authenticate payments over these paths to the recipient.

We can't reuse Bolt12OfferContext for this because we don't have access to the
invoice request fields at static invoice creation time.
This context is included in static invoice's blinded message paths, provided
back to us in HeldHtlcAvailable onion messages for blinded path authentication.
In future work, we will check if this context is valid and respond with a
ReleaseHeldHtlc message to release the upstream payment if so.

We also add creation methods for the hmac used for authenticating the blinded path
using the static invoice's corresponding offer id.
We can't use our regular offer creation util for receiving async payments
because the recipient can't be relied on to be online to service
invoice_requests.

Therefore, add a new offer creation util that is parameterized by blinded
message paths to another node on the network that *is* always-online and can
serve static invoices on behalf of the often-offline recipient.

Also add a utility for creating static invoices corresponding to these offers.
See new utils' docs and BOLTs PR 1149 for more info.
Since adding support for creating static invoices from ChannelManager, it's
easier to test these failure cases that went untested when we added support for
paying static invoices.
@valentinewallace valentinewallace marked this pull request as ready for review November 14, 2024 20:49
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.

1 participant