-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
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
itest: expect failure on direct rfq peer btc invoices #916
base: update-to-lnd-18-4
Are you sure you want to change the base?
itest: expect failure on direct rfq peer btc invoices #916
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
itest seems to fail.
t.t, charlie, dave, dave, 20_000, assetID, withSmallShards(), | ||
withFailure(lnrpc.Payment_FAILED, lnrpc.PaymentFailureReason_FAILURE_REASON_INCORRECT_PAYMENT_DETAILS), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lll, here and below. Can use failureIncorrectDetails
that's defined in assets_test.go
instead.
interesting, could be flaky, didn't hit this on local tests |
also linter seems to fail here with
passes locally |
dd49654
to
890764a
Compare
Previously we'd consider it acceptable to settle direct rfq peer invoices, which included no rfq scid, with asset HTLCs. This behavior has been updated on the tapd invoice manager and we no longer accept asset HTLCs on invoices that do not expect assets. This commit updates such payments in our itests to instead expect a failure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 need to remove the temp commit (waiting on dep I guess?), otherwise looks good.
thanks @ffranr , currently working on resolving an error with the htlc force-close test, will push once it has been resolved |
32daefb
to
19fd405
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM pending dependant PRs and nit mentioned in earlier review.
Description
Previously we'd consider it acceptable to settle direct rfq peer
invoices, which included no rfq scid, with asset HTLCs. This behavior
has been updated on the tapd invoice manager and we no longer accept
asset HTLCs on invoices that do not expect assets. This commit updates
such payments in our itests to instead expect a failure.
Tapd dependency: lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1244
Lnd dependency: lightningnetwork/lnd#9357