← Watch feed
xpay: take over pay invocations by default.
Public commit record
90/100 · Strong
What the developer wrote
Authored by Rusty Russell
xpay: take over pay invocations by default.
The main change here is the error messages got better. Where that was
the case, and the test was not completely redundant with existing xpay
tests, I explicitly converted to calls to xpay (meaning the tests
will be kept when `pay` is finally removed).
Test changes:
1. deschash checking is old-pay only, keep that there.
2. Add debug logs for checks for using forwarding via scid in injectpaymentonion.
3. Don't assert that not all sendpays should have the invoice string: xpay does not try to be clever there.
4. We no longer check if invoices are already paid before routing, since injectpaymentonion will catch that for us.
5. Removed `test_pay_get_error_with_update` which has xpay equiv.
Changelog-Changed: JSON-RPC: `xpay` now handles `pay` command by default (use `xpay-handle-pay=false` to prevent this)
Changelog-Removed: JSON-RPC: `exclude` parameter to `pay` (when `xpay-handle-pay` is True): craft a layer with desired modifications and pass it to `xpay` `layers`.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification
What changed, and why it matters
This commit changes Core Lightning so that the newer 'xpay' plugin silently handles most calls to the older 'pay' command by default. It is a feature migration, not a security patch. The old 'pay' command is marked deprecated, and some of its options (like 'exclude') are removed when xpay takes over. The change is mostly about routing and error-message behavior, not about fixing a vulnerability.
Recommended action
Treat this as a behavioral change requiring release-note documentation and operator awareness, not as a security fix. Users and integrations relying on 'pay' options such as 'exclude', specific retry/attempt reporting via paystatus, or old error codes should test against xpay or set 'xpay-handle-pay=false' during migration. Review xpay's handling of in-flight payments and duplicate-invoice detection to ensure it matches operational expectations.
Security signals we found
01
Deprecation of a long-standing RPC command ('pay') and change in default routing implementation
02
Removal of the 'exclude' parameter from 'pay' when xpay-handle-pay is true
03
Behavior change: duplicate in-flight payment detection now handled differently by xpay
04
Behavior change: pre-routing 'already paid' check removed because injectpaymentonion is expected to catch duplicates
05
Test expectations updated to match new error strings and retry semantics
Evidence from the diff
The patch flips xpay’s ‘take_over_pay’ default from false to true, making xpay the default implementation for most JSON-RPC ‘pay’ invocations. Documentation and generated schema are updated to note that ‘pay’ is deprecated as of v26.06 and that xpay transparently handles most calls. The ‘exclude’ parameter is removed from ‘pay’ when xpay is active; users are directed to use xpay’s ‘layers’ instead. Test files are updated to call xpay directly or to disable xpay takeover where old-pay-specific behavior (description-hash checks, manual exclude, partial msat, self-pay) is being tested. Two debug log lines are added to injectpaymentonion for forwarding by scid/nodeid. No cryptographic, authorization, or memory-safety fixes are present.
Changed components
plugins/xpay/xpay.clightningd/pay.cdoc/schemas/pay.jsoncontrib/msggen/msggen/schema.jsontests/test_pay.pytests/test_invoices.pytests/test_plugin.pyInspect captured patch +116 / −232
diff --git a/contrib/msggen/msggen/schema.json b/contrib/msggen/msggen/schema.json
index e2db77cd..8c929073 100644
--- a/contrib/msggen/msggen/schema.json
+++ b/contrib/msggen/msggen/schema.json
@@ -30430,8 +30430,10 @@
"$schema": "../rpc-schema-draft.json",
"type": "object",
"rpc": "pay",
- "title": "Command for sending a payment to a BOLT11 invoice",
+ "title": "Command for sending a payment to a BOLT11/BOLT12 invoice",
"description": [
+ "NOTE: As of v26.06, xpay transparantly handles most **pay** invocations, and **pay** is deprecated.",
+ "",
"The **pay** RPC command attempts to find a route to the given destination, and send the funds it asks for. .",
"",
"The response will occur when the payment fails or succeeds. Once a payment has succeeded, calls to **pay** with the same *bolt11* will succeed immediately.",
diff --git a/doc/schemas/pay.json b/doc/schemas/pay.json
index 4c353869..5e89a6ca 100644
--- a/doc/schemas/pay.json
+++ b/doc/schemas/pay.json
@@ -2,8 +2,10 @@
"$schema": "../rpc-schema-draft.json",
"type": "object",
"rpc": "pay",
- "title": "Command for sending a payment to a BOLT11 invoice",
+ "title": "Command for sending a payment to a BOLT11/BOLT12 invoice",
"description": [
+ "NOTE: As of v26.06, xpay transparantly handles most **pay** invocations, and **pay** is deprecated.",
+ "",
"The **pay** RPC command attempts to find a route to the given destination, and send the funds it asks for. .",
"",
"The response will occur when the payment fails or succeeds. Once a payment has succeeded, calls to **pay** with the same *bolt11* will succeed immediately.",
diff --git a/lightningd/pay.c b/lightningd/pay.c
index afdc5dac..1abf7585 100644
--- a/lightningd/pay.c
+++ b/lightningd/pay.c
@@ -2002,6 +2002,8 @@ static struct command_result *json_injectpaymentonion(struct command *cmd,
/* If they use scid, we use exactly the channel they tell us to here! */
if (payload->forward_channel) {
+ log_debug(cmd->ld->log, "injectpaymentonion: sending to channel %s",
+ fmt_short_channel_id(tmpctx, *payload->forward_channel));
next = any_channel_by_scid(cmd->ld,
*payload->forward_channel,
true);
@@ -2023,6 +2025,8 @@ static struct command_result *json_injectpaymentonion(struct command *cmd,
struct peer *next_peer;
node_id_from_pubkey(&nid, payload->forward_node_id);
+ log_debug(cmd->ld->log, "injectpaymentonion: sending to peer %s",
+ fmt_node_id(tmpctx, &nid));
next_peer = peer_by_id(cmd->ld, &nid);
if (!next_peer)
return command_fail(cmd, JSONRPC2_INVALID_PARAMS,
diff --git a/plugins/xpay/xpay.c b/plugins/xpay/xpay.c
index e6bda299..c5356158 100644
--- a/plugins/xpay/xpay.c
+++ b/plugins/xpay/xpay.c
@@ -3137,7 +3137,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
setup_locale();
xpay = tal(NULL, struct xpay);
- xpay->take_over_pay = false;
+ xpay->take_over_pay = true;
xpay->slow_mode = false;
xpay->dev_no_age = false;
plugin_main(argv, init, take(xpay),
diff --git a/tests/test_invoices.py b/tests/test_invoices.py
index eebeca0f..6743d8d4 100644
--- a/tests/test_invoices.py
+++ b/tests/test_invoices.py
@@ -776,7 +776,8 @@ def test_wait_invoices(node_factory, executor):
def test_invoice_deschash(node_factory, chainparams):
- l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2)
+ # xpay ignores description, so use real pay.
+ l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2, opts={'xpay-handle-pay': False})
# BOLT #11:
# * `h`: tagged field: hash of description
diff --git a/tests/test_pay.py b/tests/test_pay.py
index 68928dde..81e2b1e7 100644
--- a/tests/test_pay.py
+++ b/tests/test_pay.py
@@ -102,51 +102,33 @@ def test_pay_limits(node_factory):
"""Test that we enforce fee max percentage and max delay"""
l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3, wait_for_announce=True)
- # FIXME: pylightning should define these!
- PAY_STOPPED_RETRYING = 210
+ # FIXME: pylightning should define this!
+ PAY_ROUTE_TOO_EXPENSIVE = 206
inv = l3.rpc.invoice("any", "any", 'description')
# Fee too high.
- err = r'Fee exceeds our fee budget: [1-9]msat > 0msat, discarding route'
+ err = r'Could not find route without excessive cost'
with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=err) as err:
- l1.rpc.call('pay', {'bolt11': inv['bolt11'], 'amount_msat': 100000, 'maxfeepercent': 0.0001, 'exemptfee': 0})
+ l1.rpc.call('xpay', {'invstring': inv['bolt11'], 'amount_msat': 100000, 'maxfee': 1})
- assert err.value.error['code'] == PAY_STOPPED_RETRYING
+ assert err.value.error['code'] == PAY_ROUTE_TOO_EXPENSIVE
- # It should have retried two more times (one without routehint and one with routehint)
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', {'bolt11': inv['bolt11']})['pay'][0]['attempts']
-
- # We have an internal test to see if we can reach the destination directly
- # without a routehint, that will enable a NULL-routehint. We will then try
- # with the provided routehint, and the NULL routehint, resulting in 2
- # attempts.
- assert(len(status) == 2)
- assert(status[0]['failure']['code'] == 205)
-
- failmsg = r'CLTV delay exceeds our CLTV budget'
+ failmsg = r'Could not find route without excessive delays'
# Delay too high.
with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=failmsg) as err:
- l1.rpc.call('pay', {'bolt11': inv['bolt11'], 'amount_msat': 100000, 'maxdelay': 0})
+ l1.rpc.call('xpay', {'invstring': inv['bolt11'], 'amount_msat': 100000, 'maxdelay': 0})
- assert err.value.error['code'] == PAY_STOPPED_RETRYING
- # Should also have retried two more times.
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', {'bolt11': inv['bolt11']})['pay'][1]['attempts']
-
- assert(len(status) == 2)
- assert(status[0]['failure']['code'] == 205)
+ assert err.value.error['code'] == PAY_ROUTE_TOO_EXPENSIVE
# This fails!
- err = r'Fee exceeds our fee budget: 2msat > 1msat, discarding route'
+ err = r'Could not find route without excessive cost'
with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=err) as err:
- l1.rpc.pay(bolt11=inv['bolt11'], amount_msat=100000, maxfee=1)
+ l1.rpc.xpay(invstring=inv['bolt11'], amount_msat=100000, maxfee=1)
# This works, because fee is less than exemptfee.
l1.dev_pay(inv['bolt11'], amount_msat=100000, maxfeepercent=0.0001,
exemptfee=2000, dev_use_shadow=False)
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', {'bolt11': inv['bolt11']})['pay'][3]['attempts']
- assert len(status) == 1
- assert status[0]['strategy'] == "Initial attempt"
def test_pay_maxdelay_direct_channel(node_factory):
@@ -156,8 +138,8 @@ def test_pay_maxdelay_direct_channel(node_factory):
inv = l2.rpc.invoice('10000msat', 'test_pay_maxdelay_direct', 'description')['bolt11']
# Delay too low for direct channel.
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'CLTV delay exceeds our CLTV budget'):
- l1.rpc.call('pay', {'bolt11': inv, 'maxdelay': 1})
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Could not find route without excessive delays'):
+ l1.rpc.call('xpay', {'invstring': inv, 'maxdelay': 1})
def test_pay_exclude_node(node_factory, bitcoind):
@@ -177,19 +159,10 @@ def test_pay_exclude_node(node_factory, bitcoind):
amount = 10**8
inv = l3.rpc.invoice(amount, "test1", 'description')['bolt11']
- with pytest.raises(RpcError):
+ # It should have eliminated route hint.
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r"Failed after 1 attempts. We got a weird error \(temporary_node_failure\) for the invoice's route hint \([0-9x]*/0\): disabling it for this payment. Then routing failed: We could not find a usable set of paths. All 1 channels to the destination are disabled."):
l1.rpc.pay(inv)
- # It should have retried (once without routehint, too)
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', {'bolt11': inv})['pay'][0]['attempts']
-
- # Excludes channel, then ignores routehint which includes that, then
- # it excludes other channel.
- assert len(status) == 2
- assert status[0]['strategy'] == "Initial attempt"
- assert status[0]['failure']['data']['failcodename'] == 'WIRE_TEMPORARY_NODE_FAILURE'
- assert 'failure' in status[1]
-
# Get a fresh invoice, but do it before other routes exist, so routehint
# will be via l2.
inv = l3.rpc.invoice(amount, "test2", 'description')['bolt11']
@@ -222,15 +195,7 @@ def test_pay_exclude_node(node_factory, bitcoind):
# This `pay` will work
l1.rpc.pay(inv)
- # It should have retried (once without routehint, too)
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', {'bolt11': inv})['pay'][0]['attempts']
-
- # Excludes channel, then ignores routehint which includes that, then
- # it excludes other channel.
- assert len(status) == 2
- assert status[0]['strategy'] == "Initial attempt"
- assert status[0]['failure']['data']['failcodename'] == 'WIRE_TEMPORARY_NODE_FAILURE'
- assert 'success' in status[1]
+ [p['status'] for p in l1.rpc.listsendpays()['payments']] == ['failed', 'failed', 'complete']
def test_pay0(node_factory):
@@ -309,38 +274,6 @@ def test_pay_disconnect(node_factory, bitcoind):
l1.daemon.wait_for_log('ONCHAIN')
-def test_pay_get_error_with_update(node_factory):
- """We should process an update inside a temporary_channel_failure"""
- l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3, opts={'log-level': 'io'}, fundchannel=True, wait_for_announce=True)
- chanid2 = l2.get_channel_scid(l3)
-
- inv = l3.rpc.invoice(123000, 'test_pay_get_error_with_update', 'description')
-
- # Make sure it's not doing startup any more (where it doesn't disable channels!)
- l2.daemon.wait_for_log("channel_gossip: no longer in startup mode", timeout=70)
-
- # Make sure l2 doesn't tell l1 directly that channel is disabled.
- l2.rpc.dev_suppress_gossip()
- l3.stop()
-
- # Make sure that l2 has seen disconnect, considers channel disabled.
- wait_for(lambda: only_one(l2.rpc.listpeerchannels(l3.info['id'])['channels'])['peer_connected'] is False)
-
- assert(l1.is_channel_active(chanid2))
-
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE'):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv['bolt11'])
-
- # Make sure we get an onionreply, without the type prefix of the nested
- # channel_update, and it should patch it to include a type prefix. The
- # prefix 0x0102 should be in the channel_update, but not in the
- # onionreply (negation of 0x0102 in the RE)
- l1.daemon.wait_for_log(r'Extracted channel_update 0102.*from onionreply 1007008a[0-9a-fA-F]{276}$')
-
- # And now monitor for l1 to apply the channel_update we just extracted
- wait_for(lambda: not l1.is_channel_active(chanid2))
-
-
def test_pay_error_update_fees(node_factory):
"""We should process an update inside a temporary_channel_failure"""
l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3, fundchannel=True, wait_for_announce=True)
@@ -358,19 +291,16 @@ def test_pay_error_update_fees(node_factory):
l2.rpc.setchannel(l3.info['id'], 1337, 137, enforcedelay=0)
# Should bounce off and retry...
- l1.rpc.pay(inv1['bolt11'])
- attempts = only_one(l1.rpc.paystatus(inv1['bolt11'])['pay'])['attempts']
- assert len(attempts) == 2
- # WIRE_FEE_INSUFFICIENT = UPDATE|12
- assert attempts[0]['failure']['data']['failcode'] == 4108
+ ret = l1.rpc.pay(inv1['bolt11'])
+ assert ret['parts'] == 2
+ payments = l1.rpc.listsendpays(inv1['bolt11'])['payments']
+ assert len(payments) == 2
- # FIXME: We *DO NOT* handle misleading routehints!
- # # Should ignore old routehint and do the same...
- # l1.rpc.pay(inv2['bolt11'])
- # attempts = only_one(l1.rpc.paystatus(inv2['bolt11'])['pay'])['attempts']
- # assert len(attempts) == 2
- # # WIRE_FEE_INSUFFICIENT = UPDATE|12
- # assert attempts[0]['failure']['data']['failcode'] == 4108
+ # Should ignore old routehint and do the same...
+ ret = l1.rpc.pay(inv2['bolt11'])
+ assert ret['parts'] == 2
+ payments = l1.rpc.listsendpays(inv2['bolt11'])['payments']
+ assert len(payments) == 2
def test_pay_optional_args(node_factory):
@@ -444,15 +374,6 @@ def test_payment_success_persistence(node_factory, bitcoind, executor):
assert len(payments) == 1 and payments[0]['status'] == 'complete'
assert len(invoices) == 1 and invoices[0]['status'] == 'paid'
- l1.wait_local_channel_active(chanid)
-
- # A duplicate should succeed immediately (nop) and return correct preimage.
- preimage = l1.dev_pay(
- inv1['bolt11'],
- dev_use_shadow=False
- )['payment_preimage']
- assert l1.rpc.dev_rhash(preimage)['rhash'] == inv1['payment_hash']
-
@pytest.mark.openchannel('v1')
@pytest.mark.openchannel('v2')
@@ -502,7 +423,7 @@ def test_payment_failed_persistence(node_factory, executor):
assert len(payments) == 1 and payments[0]['status'] == 'failed'
# Another attempt should also fail.
- with pytest.raises(RpcError):
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match='Invoice expired'):
l1.rpc.pay(inv1['bolt11'])
@@ -518,7 +439,7 @@ def test_payment_duplicate_uncommitted(node_factory, executor):
inv1 = l2.rpc.invoice(1000, 'inv1', 'inv1')
# Start first payment, but not yet in db.
- fut = executor.submit(l1.rpc.pay, inv1['bolt11'])
+ fut = executor.submit(l1.rpc.xpay, inv1['bolt11'])
# Make sure that's started...
l1.daemon.wait_for_log('peer_out WIRE_UPDATE_ADD_HTLC')
@@ -528,15 +449,16 @@ def test_payment_duplicate_uncommitted(node_factory, executor):
assert len(payments) == 1
assert payments[0]['status'] == 'pending' and payments[0]['payment_hash'] == inv1['payment_hash']
- # Second one will succeed eventually.
- fut2 = executor.submit(l1.rpc.pay, inv1['bolt11'])
+ # Second one will be stopped.
+ fut2 = executor.submit(l1.rpc.xpay, inv1['bolt11'])
# Now, let it commit.
l1.rpc.dev_reenable_commit(l2.info['id'])
- # These should succeed.
+ # First should succeed, second should be denied.
fut.result(TIMEOUT)
- fut2.result(TIMEOUT)
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match="Payment with groupid=[0-9]* still in progress, cannot retry before that completes"):
+ fut2.result(TIMEOUT)
def test_pay_maxfee_shadow(node_factory):
@@ -1841,6 +1763,9 @@ def test_pay_variants(node_factory):
l1.rpc.pay(b11)
+# This can fail since xpay doesn't yet control listpays, so it can flag something
+# failed while it's still being attempted.
+@pytest.mark.xfail()
@pytest.mark.slow_test
def test_pay_retry(node_factory, bitcoind, executor, chainparams):
"""Make sure pay command retries properly. """
@@ -1919,10 +1844,13 @@ def test_pay_retry(node_factory, bitcoind, executor, chainparams):
# It will try l1->l2->l3->l4->l5, which fails.
# Finally, fails to find a route.
inv = l5.rpc.invoice(10**8, 'test_retry2', 'test_retry2')['bolt11']
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'4 attempts'):
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Failed after [0-9]* attempts'):
l1.dev_pay(inv, dev_use_shadow=False)
+# This can fail since xpay doesn't yet control listpays, so it can flag something
+# failed while it's still being attempted.
+@pytest.mark.xfail()
def test_pay_avoid_low_fee_chan(node_factory, bitcoind, executor, chainparams):
"""Make sure we're able to route around a low fee depleted channel """
@@ -2009,11 +1937,8 @@ def test_pay_routeboost(node_factory, bitcoind):
l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2, announce_channels=True, wait_for_announce=True)
l3, l4, l5 = node_factory.line_graph(3, announce_channels=False, wait_for_announce=False)
- # This should a "could not find a route" because that's true.
- error = r'Destination [a-f0-9]{66} is not reachable directly and all routehints were unusable'
-
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=error):
- l1.rpc.pay(l5.rpc.invoice(10**8, 'test_retry', 'test_retry')['bolt11'])
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=rf"Failed: Unknown destination node {l5.info['id']}"):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(l5.rpc.invoice(10**8, 'test_retry', 'test_retry')['bolt11'])
l2.rpc.connect(l3.info['id'], 'localhost', l3.port)
scidl2l3, _ = l2.fundchannel(l3, 10**6)
@@ -2038,25 +1963,12 @@ def test_pay_routeboost(node_factory, bitcoind):
assert only_one(only_one(l1.rpc.decode(inv['bolt11'])['routes']))
# Now we should be able to pay it.
- l1.dev_pay(inv['bolt11'], dev_use_shadow=False)
-
- # Status should show all the gory details.
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', [inv['bolt11']])
- assert only_one(status['pay'])['bolt11'] == inv['bolt11']
- assert only_one(status['pay'])['amount_msat'] == Millisatoshi(10**5)
- assert only_one(status['pay'])['destination'] == l4.info['id']
- assert 'label' not in only_one(status['pay'])
- assert 'routehint_modifications' not in only_one(status['pay'])
- assert 'local_exclusions' not in only_one(status['pay'])
- attempts = only_one(status['pay'])['attempts']
- scid34 = l3.rpc.listpeerchannels(l4.info['id'])['channels'][0]['alias']['local']
- assert(len(attempts) == 1)
- a = attempts[0]
- assert(a['strategy'] == "Initial attempt")
- assert('success' in a)
- assert('payment_preimage' in a['success'])
+ ret = l1.rpc.xpay(inv['bolt11'], dev_use_shadow=False)
+ assert ret['failed_parts'] == 0
+ assert ret['successful_parts'] == 1
# With dev-route option we can test longer routehints.
+ scid34 = l3.rpc.listpeerchannels(l4.info['id'])['channels'][0]['alias']['local']
scid45 = l4.rpc.listpeerchannels(l5.info['id'])['channels'][0]['alias']['local']
routel3l4l5 = [{'id': l3.info['id'],
'short_channel_id': scid34,
@@ -2072,13 +1984,9 @@ def test_pay_routeboost(node_factory, bitcoind):
label='test_pay_routeboost2',
description='test_pay_routeboost2',
dev_routes=[routel3l4l5])
- l1.dev_pay(inv['bolt11'], dev_use_shadow=False)
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', [inv['bolt11']])
- pay = only_one(status['pay'])
- attempts = pay['attempts']
- assert(len(attempts) == 1)
- assert 'failure' not in attempts[0]
- assert 'success' in attempts[0]
+ ret = l1.rpc.xpay(inv['bolt11'], dev_use_shadow=False)
+ assert ret['failed_parts'] == 0
+ assert ret['successful_parts'] == 1
# Finally, it should fall back to second routehint if first fails.
# (Note, this is not public because it's not 6 deep). To test this
@@ -2108,24 +2016,10 @@ def test_pay_routeboost(node_factory, bitcoind):
label='test_pay_routeboost5',
description='test_pay_routeboost5',
dev_routes=[routel3l4l5, routel3l5])
- l1.dev_pay(inv['bolt11'], label="paying test_pay_routeboost5",
- dev_use_shadow=False)
-
- status = l1.rpc.call('paystatus', [inv['bolt11']])
- assert only_one(status['pay'])['bolt11'] == inv['bolt11']
- assert only_one(status['pay'])['destination'] == l5.info['id']
- assert only_one(status['pay'])['label'] == "paying test_pay_routeboost5"
- assert 'routehint_modifications' not in only_one(status['pay'])
- assert 'local_exclusions' not in only_one(status['pay'])
- attempts = only_one(status['pay'])['attempts']
-
- # First routehint in the invoice fails, we may retry that one
- # unsuccessfully before switching, hence the >2 instead of =2
- assert len(attempts) >= 2
- assert 'success' not in attempts[0]
- assert 'success' in attempts[-1]
- # TODO Add assertion on the routehint once we add them to the pay
- # output
+ ret = l1.rpc.xpay(inv['bolt11'], label="paying test_pay_routeboost5",
+ dev_use_shadow=False)
+ assert ret['failed_parts'] == 0
+ assert ret['successful_parts'] == 1
def test_setchannel_usage(node_factory, bitcoind):
@@ -2422,9 +2316,8 @@ def test_setchannel_routing(node_factory, bitcoind):
label='test_setchannel_1',
description='desc',
dev_routes=[])
- with pytest.raises(RpcError) as routefail:
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=f'The shortest path is [0-9x]*->{scid}, but {scid}/0 exceeds htlc_maximum_msat ~4001792msat'):
l1.dev_pay(inv['bolt11'], dev_use_shadow=False)
- assert routefail.value.error['attempts'][0]['failreason'] == 'No path found'
# 1337 + 4000000 * 137 / 1000000 = 1885
route_ok = l1.single_route(l3.info['id'], 4000000)
@@ -2976,13 +2869,13 @@ def test_pay_no_secret(node_factory, bitcoind):
# Produced from modified version (different secret!).
inv_badsecret = 'lnbcrt1u1pwuedm6pp5ve584t0cv27hwmy0cx9ca8uwyqyfw9y9dm3r8vus9fv36r2l9yjsdqaw3jhxazlwpshjhmwda0hxetrwfjhgxq8pmnt9qqcqp9sp52au0npwmw4xxv2rfrat04kh9p3jlmklgavhfxqukx0l05pw5tccs9qypqsqa286dmt2xh3jy8cd8ndeyr845q8a7nhgjkerdqjns76jraux6j25ddx9f5k5r2ey0kk942x3uhaff66794kyjxxcd48uevf7p6ja53gqjj5ur7'
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r"INCORRECT_OR_UNKNOWN_PAYMENT_DETAILS.*'erring_index': 1"):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv_badsecret)
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r"Destination said it doesn't know invoice: incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details"):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv_badsecret)
# Produced from old version (no secret!)
inv_nosecret = 'lnbcrt1u1pwue4vapp5ve584t0cv27hwmy0cx9ca8uwyqyfw9y9dm3r8vus9fv36r2l9yjsdqaw3jhxazlwpshjhmwda0hxetrwfjhgxq8pmnt9qqcqp9570xsjyykvssa6ty8fjth6f2y8h09myngad9utesttwjwclv95fz3lgd402f9e5yzpnxmkypg55rkvpg522gcz4ymsjl2w3m4jhw4jsp55m7tl'
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r"Invalid bolt11: Missing required payment secret \(s field\)"):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv_nosecret)
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r"Invalid bolt11 invoice: Missing required payment secret \(s field\)"):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv_nosecret)
def test_shadow_routing(node_factory):
@@ -3542,7 +3435,7 @@ def test_excluded_adjacent_routehint(node_factory, bitcoind):
wait_for(lambda: 'remote' in only_one(l1.rpc.listpeerchannels()['channels'])['updates'])
# This will make it reject the routehint.
- err = r'Fee exceeds our fee budget: 1msat > 0msat, discarding route'
+ err = 'Failed: Could not find route without excessive cost'
with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=err):
l1.rpc.pay(bolt11=inv['bolt11'], maxfeepercent=0, exemptfee=0)
@@ -3887,7 +3780,7 @@ def test_pay_exemptfee(node_factory):
wait_for_announce=True
)
- err = r'Ran out of routes to try'
+ err = r'Could not find route without excessive cost'
with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=err):
l1.dev_pay(l3.rpc.invoice(1, "lbl1", "desc")['bolt11'], dev_use_shadow=False)
@@ -4031,8 +3924,6 @@ def test_mpp_adaptive(node_factory, bitcoind):
# You were supposed to mpp!
assert count > 1
- # Not every one should have the bolt11 string
- assert bolt11s < count
# listpays() shows bolt11 string
assert 'bolt11' in only_one(l1.rpc.listpays()['pays'])
@@ -4720,7 +4611,7 @@ def test_fetchinvoice(node_factory, bitcoind):
l1.rpc.pay(inv1['invoice'])
# We can't pay the other one now.
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match="INCORRECT_OR_UNKNOWN_PAYMENT_DETAILS.*'erring_node': '{}'".format(l3.info['id'])):
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match="Destination said it doesn't know invoice: incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details"):
l1.rpc.pay(inv2['invoice'])
# We can't reuse the offer, either.
@@ -5049,15 +4940,11 @@ def test_pay_waitblockheight_timeout(node_factory, bitcoind):
sync_blockheight(bitcoind, [l1, l2])
inv = l2.rpc.invoice(42, 'lbl', 'desc')['bolt11']
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'WIRE_INCORRECT_OR_UNKNOWN_PAYMENT_DETAILS'):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv)
-
- # Post mortem checks that we tried only once.
- status = l1.rpc.paystatus(inv)
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Timed out waiting for blockheight 2147483647\.'):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv)
# Should have only one attempt that triggered the wait, which then failed.
- assert len(status['pay']) == 1
- assert len(status['pay'][0]['attempts']) == 1
+ assert len(l1.rpc.listsendpays()['payments']) == 1
def test_dev_rawrequest(node_factory):
@@ -5159,7 +5046,8 @@ def test_self_pay(node_factory):
"""Repro test for issue 4345: pay ourselves via the pay plugin.
"""
- l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2, wait_for_announce=True)
+ l1, l2 = node_factory.line_graph(2, wait_for_announce=True,
+ opts={'xpay-handle-pay': False})
inv = l1.rpc.invoice(10000, 'test', 'test')['bolt11']
l1.rpc.pay(inv)
@@ -5204,14 +5092,8 @@ def test_unreachable_routehint(node_factory, bitcoind):
assert('routes' in decoded and len(decoded['routes']) == 1)
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Destination [a-f0-9]{66} is not reachable'):
- l1.rpc.pay(invoice)
-
- l1.daemon.wait_for_log(
- r"Removed routehint 0 because entrypoint {entrypoint} is unknown.".format(
- entrypoint=entrypoint
- )
- )
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Failed: There is no connection between source and destination at all'):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(invoice)
# Now connect l2 to l3 to create a bridge, but without a
# channel. The entrypoint will become known, but still
@@ -5220,20 +5102,11 @@ def test_unreachable_routehint(node_factory, bitcoind):
l2.connect(l3)
wait_for(lambda: len(l1.rpc.listnodes(entrypoint)['nodes']) == 1)
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Destination [a-f0-9]{66} is not reachable') as excinfo:
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Failed: There is no connection between source and destination at all'):
l1.rpc.pay(invoice)
- # Verify that we failed for the correct reason.
- l1.daemon.wait_for_log(
- r"Removed routehint 0 because entrypoint {entrypoint} is unreachable.".format(
- entrypoint=entrypoint
- )
- )
-
- # Since we aborted once we realized the destination is unreachable
- # both directly, and via the routehints we should now just have a
- # single attempt.
- assert(len(excinfo.value.error['attempts']) == 1)
+ # Make sure we didn't try to pay it.
+ assert l1.rpc.listsendpays() == {'payments': []}
def test_routehint_tous(node_factory, bitcoind):
@@ -5257,8 +5130,8 @@ gives a routehint straight to us causes an issue
== only_one(l3.rpc.listpeerchannels()['channels'])['alias']['remote'])
l3.stop()
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Destination .* is not reachable directly and all routehints were unusable'):
- l2.rpc.pay(inv)
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Failed: We could not find a usable set of paths. All 1 channels to the destination are disabled.'):
+ l2.rpc.xpay(inv)
def test_setchannel_enforcement_delay(node_factory, bitcoind):
@@ -5372,20 +5245,14 @@ def test_sendpay_grouping(node_factory, bitcoind):
assert(len(l1.db.query("SELECT * FROM payments")) == 0)
assert(len(l1.rpc.listpays()['pays']) == 0)
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Ran out of routes to try after [0-9]+ attempts'):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv, amount_msat='100002msat')
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Failed after 1 attempts'):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv, amount_msat='100002msat')
# After this one invocation we have one entry in `listpays`
assert(len(l1.rpc.listpays()['pays']) == 1)
- # Pay learns, and sometimes now refuses to even attempt. Give it a new channel.
- l3.start()
- node_factory.join_nodes([l2, l3], wait_for_announce=True)
- wait_for(lambda: len(l1.rpc.listchannels()['channels']) == 6)
- l3.stop()
-
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Ran out of routes to try after [0-9]+ attempts'):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv, amount_msat='100001msat')
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Failed after 1 attempts'):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv, amount_msat='100001msat')
# Surprise: we should have 2 entries after 2 invocations
assert(len(l1.rpc.listpays()['pays']) == 2)
@@ -5408,7 +5275,8 @@ def test_sendpay_grouping(node_factory, bitcoind):
@pytest.mark.flaky(reruns=2)
def test_pay_manual_exclude(node_factory, bitcoind):
- l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3, wait_for_announce=True)
+ l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3, wait_for_announce=True,
+ opts={'xpay-handle-pay': False})
l1_id = l1.rpc.getinfo()['id']
l2_id = l2.rpc.getinfo()['id']
l3_id = l3.rpc.getinfo()['id']
@@ -5451,8 +5319,8 @@ def test_pay_bolt11_metadata(node_factory, bitcoind):
# Make l2 "know" about this invoice.
l2.rpc.invoice(amount_msat=123000, label='label1', description='desc', preimage='00' * 32)
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'WIRE_INVALID_ONION_PAYLOAD'):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv)
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match=r'Unexpected error \(invalid_onion_payload\) from final node'):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv)
l2.daemon.wait_for_log("Unexpected payment_metadata {}".format(b'this is metadata'.hex()))
@@ -5746,14 +5614,16 @@ def test_sendpays_wait(node_factory, executor):
l1.daemon.wait_for_log('waiting on sendpays created 1')
inv1 = l2.rpc.invoice(42, 'invlabel', 'invdesc')
- l1.rpc.pay(inv1['bolt11'])
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv1['bolt11'])
waitres = waitfut.result(TIMEOUT)
+ # groupid is random
+ groupid = waitres['sendpays']['groupid']
assert waitres == {'subsystem': 'sendpays',
'created': 1,
'sendpays': {'status': 'pending',
- 'partid': 0,
- 'groupid': 1,
+ 'partid': 1,
+ 'groupid': groupid,
'payment_hash': inv1['payment_hash']}}
assert only_one(l1.rpc.listsendpays(bolt11=inv1['bolt11'])['payments'])['created_index'] == 1
assert only_one(l1.rpc.listsendpays(bolt11=inv1['bolt11'])['payments'])['updated_index'] == 1
@@ -5772,13 +5642,14 @@ def test_sendpays_wait(node_factory, executor):
waitfut = executor.submit(l1.rpc.wait, subsystem='sendpays', indexname='updated', nextvalue=2)
l1.daemon.wait_for_log('waiting on sendpays updated 2')
- l1.rpc.pay(inv2['bolt11'])
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv2['bolt11'])
waitres = waitfut.result(TIMEOUT)
+ groupid = waitres['sendpays']['groupid']
assert waitres == {'subsystem': 'sendpays',
'updated': 2,
'sendpays': {'status': 'complete',
- 'partid': 0,
- 'groupid': 1,
+ 'partid': 1,
+ 'groupid': groupid,
'payment_hash': inv2['payment_hash']}}
assert only_one(l1.rpc.listsendpays(bolt11=inv2['bolt11'])['payments'])['created_index'] == 2
assert only_one(l1.rpc.listsendpays(bolt11=inv2['bolt11'])['payments'])['updated_index'] == 2
@@ -5794,15 +5665,16 @@ def test_sendpays_wait(node_factory, executor):
waitfut = executor.submit(l1.rpc.wait, subsystem='sendpays', indexname='updated', nextvalue=3)
l1.daemon.wait_for_log('waiting on sendpays updated 3')
- with pytest.raises(RpcError, match="WIRE_INCORRECT_OR_UNKNOWN_PAYMENT_DETAILS"):
- l1.rpc.pay(inv3['bolt11'])
+ with pytest.raises(RpcError, match="Destination said it doesn't know invoice: incorrect_or_unknown_payment_details"):
+ l1.rpc.xpay(inv3['bolt11'])
waitres = waitfut.result(TIMEOUT)
+ groupid = waitres['sendpays']['groupid']
assert waitres == {'subsystem': 'sendpays',
'updated': 3,
'sendpays': {'status': 'failed',
- 'partid': 0,
- 'groupid': 1,
+ 'partid': 1,
+ 'groupid': groupid,
'payment_hash': inv3['payment_hash']}}
# Order and pagination.
@@ -5823,14 +5695,14 @@ def test_sendpays_wait(node_factory, executor):
waitfut = executor.submit(l1.rpc.wait, subsystem='sendpays', indexname='deleted', nextvalue=1)
l1.daemon.wait_for_log('waiting on sendpays deleted 1')
- l1.rpc.delpay(inv3['payment_hash'], 'failed', 0, 1)
+ l1.rpc.delpay(inv3['payment_hash'], 'failed', 1, groupid)
waitres = waitfut.result(TIMEOUT)
assert waitres == {'subsystem': 'sendpays',
'deleted': 1,
'sendpays': {'status': 'failed',
- 'partid': 0,
- 'groupid': 1,
+ 'partid': 1,
+ 'groupid': groupid,
'payment_hash': inv3['payment_hash']}}
@@ -5863,7 +5735,8 @@ def test_pay_routehint_minhtlc(node_factory, bitcoind):
@pytest.mark.openchannel('v1')
@pytest.mark.openchannel('v2')
def test_pay_partial_msat(node_factory, executor):
- l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3)
+ l1, l2, l3 = node_factory.line_graph(3,
+ opts={'xpay-handle-pay': False})
inv = l3.rpc.invoice(100000000, "inv", "inv")
@@ -6121,7 +5994,7 @@ def test_offer_path_self(node_factory):
l2.rpc.pay(inv)
# It should have mapped the hop.
- l2.daemon.wait_for_log(f"Mapped decrypted next hop from {scid} -> {l3.info['id']}")
+ l2.daemon.wait_for_log(f"injectpaymentonion: sending to channel {scid}")
def test_offer_selfpay(node_factory):
@@ -6274,7 +6147,8 @@ def diamond_network(node_factory):
```
"""
opts = [
- {'fee-per-satoshi': 0, 'fee-base': 0}, # Sender
+ {'fee-per-satoshi': 0, 'fee-base': 0, # Sender
+ 'xpay-handle-pay': False},
{'fee-per-satoshi': 0, 'fee-base': 0}, # Low fee, but exhausted channel
{'fee-per-satoshi': 5000, 'fee-base': 0}, # Disincentivize using fw2
{'fee-per-satoshi': 0, 'fee-base': 0}, # Recipient
diff --git a/tests/test_plugin.py b/tests/test_plugin.py
index fbcb1325..b4e215f2 100644
--- a/tests/test_plugin.py
+++ b/tests/test_plugin.py
@@ -4903,7 +4903,8 @@ def test_peer_storage(node_factory, bitcoind):
@pytest.mark.parametrize("deprecated", [False, True])
def test_pay_plugin_notifications(node_factory, bitcoind, chainparams, deprecated):
plugin = os.path.join(os.getcwd(), 'tests/plugins/all_notifications.py')
- opts = {"plugin": plugin}
+ opts = {"plugin": plugin,
+ "xpay-handle-pay": False}
if deprecated:
opts['allow-deprecated-apis'] = True
Risk score
Our methodology →Why this scored 39/100
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.