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

Move Payment Retrying into ChannelManager #1932

Closed
10 tasks done
TheBlueMatt opened this issue Dec 21, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2063
Closed
10 tasks done

Move Payment Retrying into ChannelManager #1932

TheBlueMatt opened this issue Dec 21, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #2063
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

TheBlueMatt commented Dec 21, 2022

We've started down the path, now we need to land it (ideally all in one release so our API isn't randomly weird).

  • Address follow-up from ChannelManager Payment Retries #1916
  • Deduplicate PendingTLCsForwardable events, see ChannelManager Payment Retries #1916 (comment)
  • Support automatic retry methods for spontaneous payments
  • Move payment path scoring to BackgroundProcessor
    • Remove scoring methods from Router trait
  • Replace the InvoicePayer with invoice paying utility methods
  • Remove support for manual retries in ChannelManager + take abandon_payment private and call it on the user's behalf
  • Simplify send_payment_with_retry return value: don't include the PartialFailure variant, and instead generate PaymentPathFailed events for the failed paths on partial failure
  • Migrate ScorerAccountingForInFlightHtlcs tests from InvoicePayer: considers_inflight_htlcs_between_retries
  • Remove retry field from PaymentPathFailed
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

TheBlueMatt commented Feb 6, 2023

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Aside from #1916 (comment) I think all the followups from #1916 are at least in #2009 or already merged.

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Feb 16, 2023

Maybe #1969 should be tracked here too?

@valentinewallace
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe #1969 should be tracked here too?

Good point! I can fix this building on #2014.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants