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

tests: `add option_simple_close` integration tests

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Níckolas Goline

91/100 · Strong
tests: `add option_simple_close` integration tests

Four tests for the `option_simple_close` protocol (BOLT #2, bit 60). `test_simple_close_no_feature_fallback` exercises the existing legacy `closingd` path and passes now; the other three are marked xfail until the implementation lands:

- test_simple_close_basic: happy path; both nodes exchange
closing_complete/closing_sig, each broadcasts two conflicting txs,
the winner confirms, both nodes detect their output CONFIRMED
- test_simple_close_closer_pays_fee: closer bears the fee, closee
receives their exact pre-close balance
- test_simple_close_dust_output_omitted: closee output below dust is
omitted from the closing tx (closer_output_only variant)
- test_simple_close_no_feature_fallback: without bit 60, nodes fall
back to legacy closingd
- test_simple_close_restart: re-transmit our simple_close transaction after restart
- test_simple_close_closee_path: the closee (peer) transaction is stored
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Mentions testing or verification✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only adds new automated tests for an upcoming Lightning protocol feature called option_simple_close. It does not change any production code. Most of the new tests are explicitly marked as expected to fail (xfail) because the feature is not fully implemented yet. One test verifies the existing legacy closing behavior still works. There is no security vulnerability introduced or fixed here.

Recommended action

No security action required. Treat as a normal test-only commit. If reviewing the upcoming option_simple_close implementation, use these tests as the acceptance criteria once the xfail markers are removed.

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.