AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

pytest: fix flae int test_fetchinvoice_autoconnect.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

95/100 · Strong
pytest: fix flae int test_fetchinvoice_autoconnect.

l3 doesn't just need to know about l2 (which it can get from the
channel_announcement), but needs to see the node_announcement.

Otherwise:

```
l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2, wait_for_announce=True,
# No onion_message support in l1
opts=[{'dev-force-features': -39},
{'dev-allow-localhost': None}])

l3 = node_factory.get_node()
l3.rpc.connect(l1.info['id'], 'localhost', l1.port)
wait_for(lambda: l3.rpc.listnodes(l2.info['id'])['nodes'] != [])

offer = l2.rpc.call('offer', {'amount': '2msat',
'description': 'simple test'})
> l3.rpc.call('fetchinvoice', {'offer': offer['bolt12']})

tests/test_pay.py:4804:
...
> raise RpcError(method, payload, resp['error'])
E pyln.client.lightning.RpcError: RPC call failed: method: fetchinvoice, payload: {'offer': 'lno1qgsqvgnwgcg35z6ee2h3yczraddm72xrfua9uve2rlrm9deu7xyfzrcgqypq5zmnd9khqmr9yp6x2um5zcssxwz9sqkjtd8qwnx06lxckvu6g8w8t0ue0zsrfqqygj636s4sw7v6'}, error: {'code': 1003, 'message': 'Failed: could not route or connect directly to 033845802d25b4e074ccfd7cd8b339a41dc75bf9978a034800444b51d42b07799a: {"code":400,"message":"Unable to connect, no address known for peer"}'}
```

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a flaky test in the Core Lightning test suite. The test was waiting until a node learned about another node's existence, but it actually needed to wait until it also learned the node's network address. No production code was changed, and there is no security issue.

Recommended action

No security action required. This is a routine test flake fix.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.