Stay in Offline and Syncing on splice published
#539
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When a splice transaction is published, it triggers a BITCOIN_FUNDING_SPENT event that we should ignore, because this isn't a force-close. If that event is received while we're in Offline or Syncing, we need to stay in those "wrapper" states.
pm47
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When a splice transaction is published, it triggers a
BITCOIN_FUNDING_SPENTevent that we should ignore, because this isn't a force-close. If that event is received while we're inOfflineorSyncing, we need to stay in those "wrapper" states.Ideally, our type system should provide better guarantees here: we should have a different class hierarchy for channel states that can be wrapped in
OfflineandSyncingand channel states that don't (e.g.Closing). But this is quite a rabbit hole (that we already touched in #480) that deserves its own PR.