Refactor PendingSplice
#3911
Refactor PendingSplice
#3911
Conversation
|
👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer! |
| @@ -12616,7 +12616,6 @@ where | |||
| (49, self.context.local_initiated_shutdown, option), // Added in 0.0.122 | |||
| (51, is_manual_broadcast, option), // Added in 0.0.124 | |||
| (53, funding_tx_broadcast_safe_event_emitted, option), // Added in 0.0.124 | |||
| (54, self.pending_funding, optional_vec), // Added in 0.2 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We still have the opportunity to reuse 54 for negotiated_candidates when we persist that, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the more important question is whether PendingSplice (or PendingFunding) should be persisted, because currently it isn't.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'll persist PendingFunding entirely. Wasn't sure about doing it in this PR or waiting for the additions in #3736.
|
🔔 1st Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
|
🔔 2nd Reminder Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
FundedChannel::pending_funding is to be moved to PendingSplice. As such, it will be persisted with PendingSplice once persistence is added for the latter.
jkczyz
force-pushed
the
2025-07-pending-funding
branch
from
d8da168 to
12cc782
Compare
|
Rebased. |
jkczyz
force-pushed
the
2025-07-pending-funding
branch
2 times, most recently
from
75850ff to
db9149c
Compare
| @@ -6010,6 +6010,22 @@ where | |||
| &[] | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[cfg(splicing)] | |||
| fn funding_and_pending_funding_iter_mut(&mut self) -> impl Iterator<Item = &mut FundingScope> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
funding_candidates_iter_mut?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It includes the current funding. Without it, we can't chain at the call site without the borrow checker complaining.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know, it was a naming suggestion for the method. I think we could consider the current funding to also be a candidate, it's just not "pending".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm... by "current" I meant FundedChannel::funding not PendingFunding::funding. The latter is a not yet fully negotiated candidate, while the former is locked. We don't want to consider the latter here.
FundedChannel::pending_funding and FundedChannel::pending_splice were developed independently, but the former will only contain values when the latter is set.
An upcoming commit will rename PendingSplice to PendingFunding. Thus, rename the similarly named field to something more meaningful. It includes FundingScopes that have been negotiated but have not reached enough confirmations by both parties to have exchanged splice_locked.
While PendingSplice is only used for splicing a FundedChannel, it will be useful when supporting RBF for V2 channel establishment.
Now that PendingFunding directly contains the negotiated candidates, some unnecessary checks can be removed.
jkczyz
force-pushed
the
2025-07-pending-funding
branch
from
db9149c to
6dabb81
Compare
|
Squashed. Hopefully CI will be happy. |
FundedChannel::pending_fundingandFundedChannel::pending_splicewere developed independently, but the former will only contain values when the latter is set. This PR moves the former intoPendingSpliceand renames it tonegotiated_candidates. It also removes unnecessary checks forFundedChannel::pending_spliceand renamesPendingSplicetoPendingFunding. This allows for usingPendingFundingfor V2 channel establishment in order to support RBF.