Skip to content

Introduce FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event #3889

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dunxen
Copy link
Contributor

@dunxen dunxen commented Jun 24, 2025

Cherry-picked from #3735 as it is relevant to splicing and will unblock testing after #3736 lands.

The FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures event requests witnesses from the client for their contributed inputs to an interactively constructed transaction.

The client calls ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed to provide the witnesses to LDK.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 24, 2025

👋 Thanks for assigning @jkczyz as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

@dunxen dunxen requested review from wpaulino, optout21 and jkczyz June 24, 2025 12:13
/// After signing, call [`ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed`] with the (partially) signed
/// funding transaction.
///
/// Generated in [`ChannelManager`] message handling.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you add a "Failure Behavior and Persistence" section as is done for other events?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@dunxen dunxen Jun 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah and it makes sense to replay this after failure to handle, but not to persist across restarts as the new channel/splice won't be persisted before signing, anyway.

Comment on lines +5906 to +5910
let witnesses: Vec<_> = transaction
.input
.into_iter()
.filter_map(|input| if input.witness.is_empty() { None } else { Some(input.witness) })
.collect();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't have a strong opinion here, but seems we can avoid this by passing the Transaction through and only collecting witnesses when we are ready to construct TxSignatures.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool, yeah will look at changing this after fixups.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 25, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 9.70874% with 93 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.61%. Comparing base (0fe51c5) to head (8ca6d79).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 4.08% 47 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs 5.00% 38 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/interactivetxs.rs 50.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
lightning/src/events/mod.rs 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3889      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.65%   89.61%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         164      164              
  Lines      134661   134749      +88     
  Branches   134661   134749      +88     
==========================================
+ Hits       120733   120757      +24     
- Misses      11247    11317      +70     
+ Partials     2681     2675       -6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino @optout21! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

1 similar comment
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino @optout21! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Copy link
Contributor

@optout21 optout21 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

The `FundingTransactionReadyForSignatures` event requests witnesses
from the client for their contributed inputs to an interactively
constructed transaction.

The client calls `ChannelManager::funding_transaction_signed` to provide
the witnesses to LDK.
@dunxen dunxen force-pushed the 2025-06-readyforsigningevent branch from 890633d to a1de384 Compare June 27, 2025 07:20
Comment on lines +2984 to +2989
Some(Event::FundingTransactionReadyForSigning {
channel_id: self.context.channel_id,
counterparty_node_id: self.context.counterparty_node_id,
user_channel_id: self.context.user_id,
unsigned_transaction: signing_session.unsigned_tx().build_unsigned_tx(),
})
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We typically don't want to return an Event directly given we only expect to use a specific variant. Instead, could you return the transaction and have ChannelManager form the Event from it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants