contractcourt: settle invoice when claiming HTLC on-chain#2075
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could consider adding test coverage on the unit level. In general, I myself prefer to test things only in an integration test if there is really no other option.
I have an (unmerged) contract resolver test for the outgoingcontestresolver, 33c348b.
But I can also imagine that you consider this too much effort in comparison to the size of the change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I opted for the integration test change as we're interested in making sure that the invoice state is reflected correctly within the database. I guess we could have this done at the unit test level though. Let me know if you'd like to proceed with that instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We test lots of database behaviour in unit tests. I'd go for that. Integration tests can be so expensive in maintenance over their full lifetimes. Checking flakes, dirty time.sleeps, etc. Maybe ask a second person for an opinion.
|
Comments addressed, PTAL @Roasbeef @joostjager |
|
I still think a unit test would've been more appropriate for this PR (see earlier comment above), but if a second reviewer approves, I am good. Other than that, LGTM |
Roasbeef
left a comment
Roasbeef
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One style related nit, but other than that, LGTM 🐲
Agree with Joost here that this package could certainly use additional unit tests. I don't think it's worth blocking the merge of this PR as this section is already covered with additional unit tests. Further down the release timeline, if we're in a testing freeze with time to spare, we can circle back and bolster the unit tests in this package. This may be something we want to do in-between 0.6 and the next major release as well, while we gather PRs for the next milestone.
Co-authored-by: Joost Jager <joost.jager@gmail.com>
In this commit, we extend the remote/receiver chain claim integration test to assert that the on-disk representation of the invoice on the receiving side (Carol) is marked as settled due to the claiming the HTLC on-chain.
Co-authored-by: Joost Jager <joost.jager@gmail.com>
Previously, contract resolvers that needed to publish a second level tx, did not have access to the original htlc amount. This commit reconstructs this amount from data that is already persisted in arbitrator log. Co-authored-by: Joost Jager <joost.jager@gmail.com>
In this commit, we extend the htlcSuccessResolver to settle the invoice, if any, of the corresponding on-chain HTLC sweep. This ensures that the invoice state is consistent as when claiming the HTLC "off-chain".
3 participants
In this PR, we extend the
htlcSuccessResolverto settle the invoice,if any, of the corresponding on-chain HTLC sweep. This ensures that the
invoice state is consistent as when claiming the HTLC "off-chain".
Partly addresses #2032 (the receiver side).