Skip to content

litd_custom_channels_test.go: Better commenting of itest cases #1004

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

litd_custom_channels_test.go: Better commenting of itest cases #1004

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ee0b04e
litd_custom_channels_test.go: better commenting of test cases
Mar 3, 2025
901221a
fix errors in new comments, add links to related github issues
Mar 13, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
89 changes: 74 additions & 15 deletions itest/litd_custom_channels_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -419,8 +419,11 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
logBalance(t.t, nodes, assetID, "initial")

// ------------
// Test case 1: Send a direct keysend payment from Charlie to Dave,
// sending the whole balance.
// Test case 1: Send a direct asset keysend payment from Charlie to Dave,
// sending the whole asset balance.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave
//
// ------------
keySendAmount := charlieFundingAmount
sendAssetKeySendPayment(
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -466,7 +469,7 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
sendKeySendPayment(t.t, charlie, dave, 2000)
logBalance(t.t, nodes, assetID, "after BTC only keysend")

// Let's keysend the rest of the balance back to Charlie.
// Let's keysend the rest of the asset balance back to Charlie.
sendAssetKeySendPayment(
t.t, dave, charlie, charlieFundingAmount-charlieInvoiceAmount,
assetID, fn.None[int64](),
Expand All @@ -477,9 +480,20 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
daveAssetBalance -= charlieFundingAmount - charlieInvoiceAmount

// ------------
// Test case 2: Pay a normal invoice from Dave by Charlie, making it
// a direct channel invoice payment with no RFQ SCID present in the
// invoice.
// Test case 2: Pay a normal sats invoice from Dave by
// Charlie using an asset,
// making it a direct channel invoice payment with no RFQ SCID present in
// the invoice. This case should fail because Charlie can't choose
// to send something that dave is not expecting. More details about this
// scenario are discussed in
// https://github.com/lightninglabs/taproot-assets/issues/1421#issuecomment-2707614141
// In contrast, in test case 3.5 we have the opposite scenario where
// an asset invoice is used and Charlie must pay with assets and not have
// a choice (and that case is also supposed to fail because Charlie tries to
// pay with sats instead).
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave
//
// ------------
createAndPayNormalInvoice(
t.t, charlie, dave, dave, 20_000, assetID, withSmallShards(),
Expand All @@ -489,13 +503,17 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,

// We should also be able to do a multi-hop BTC only payment, paying an
// invoice from Erin by Charlie.
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave --[sats]--> Erin
createAndPayNormalInvoiceWithBtc(t.t, charlie, erin, 2000)
logBalance(t.t, nodes, assetID, "after BTC only invoice")

// ------------
// Test case 3: Pay an asset invoice from Dave by Charlie, making it
// a direct channel invoice payment with an RFQ SCID present in the
// invoice.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave
//
// ------------
const daveInvoiceAssetAmount = 2_000
invoiceResp = createAssetInvoice(
Expand All @@ -511,10 +529,22 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
daveAssetBalance += daveInvoiceAssetAmount

// ------------
// Test case 3.5: Pay an asset invoice from Dave by Charlie with normal
// Test case 3.5: Pay an asset invoice with an RFQ SCID present from Dave
// by Charlie with normal
// satoshi payment flow. We expect that payment to fail, since it's a
// direct channel payment and the invoice is for assets, not sats. So
// without a conversion, it is rejected by the receiver.
// Normally, sats is the standard and we can always pay a taproot assets
// invoice with sats, but this special case where it is a direct channel
// payment, the fact that Dave requested specifically to receive a
// taproot asset from Charlie, that must be honored because Charlie did
// an RFQ with Dave when that invoice was created agreeing that when it
// was paid that Dave would receive taproot asset instead of sats.
// More information about this scenario is discussed in
// https://github.com/lightninglabs/taproot-assets/issues/1430
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave
//
// ------------
invoiceResp = createAssetInvoice(
t.t, charlie, dave, daveInvoiceAssetAmount, assetID,
Expand All @@ -530,7 +560,11 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
// as the invoice payment failed.

// ------------
// Test case 4: Pay a normal invoice from Erin by Charlie.
// Test case 4: Pay a normal sats invoice from Erin by Charlie
// using an asset.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave --[sats]--> Erin
//
// ------------
paidAssetAmount := createAndPayNormalInvoice(
t.t, charlie, dave, erin, 20_000, assetID, withSmallShards(),
Expand All @@ -542,7 +576,10 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,

// ------------
// Test case 5: Create an asset invoice on Fabia and pay it from
// Charlie.
// Charlie using an asset.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave --[sats]--> Erin --[assets]--> Fabia
//
// ------------
const fabiaInvoiceAssetAmount1 = 1000
invoiceResp = createAssetInvoice(
Expand All @@ -563,7 +600,13 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
// Test case 6: Create an asset invoice on Fabia and pay it with just
// BTC from Dave, making sure it ends up being a multipart payment (we
// set the maximum shard size to 80k sat and 15k asset units will be
// more than a single shard).
// more than a single shard). The purpose here is to force testing of multi
// part payments so that we can do so with a simple network instead of
// building a more complicated one that actually needs multi part paymemts
// in order to get the payment to successfully route.
//
// Dave --[sats]--> Erin --[assets]--> Fabia
//
// ------------
const fabiaInvoiceAssetAmount2 = 15_000
invoiceResp = createAssetInvoice(
Expand All @@ -579,7 +622,11 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
// Test case 7: Create an asset invoice on Fabia and pay it with assets
// from Charlie, making sure it ends up being a multipart payment as
// well, with the high amount of asset units to send and the hard coded
// 80k sat max shard size.
// 80k sat max shard size. Again, as in test case 6 above, we are doing
// this here to test multi part payments in a simpler way.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave --[sats]--> Erin --[assets]--> Fabia
//
// ------------
const fabiaInvoiceAssetAmount3 = 10_000
invoiceResp = createAssetInvoice(
Expand All @@ -599,6 +646,15 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
// ------------
// Test case 8: An invoice payment over two channels that are both asset
// channels.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave
// |
// |
// [assets]
// |
// v
// Yara
//
// ------------
logBalance(t.t, nodes, assetID, "before asset-to-asset")

Expand All @@ -616,8 +672,11 @@ func testCustomChannels(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
yaraAssetBalance += yaraInvoiceAssetAmount1

// ------------
// Test case 8: Now we'll close each of the channels, starting with the
// Test case 9: Now we'll close each of the channels, starting with the
// Charlie -> Dave custom channel.
//
// Charlie --[assets]--> Dave
//
// ------------
t.Logf("Closing Charlie -> Dave channel")
closeAssetChannelAndAssert(
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1044,7 +1103,7 @@ func testCustomChannelsGroupedAsset(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
yaraAssetBalance += yaraInvoiceAssetAmount1

// ------------
// Test case 8: Now we'll close each of the channels, starting with the
// Test case 9: Now we'll close each of the channels, starting with the
// Charlie -> Dave custom channel.
// ------------
t.Logf("Closing Charlie -> Dave channel")
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2899,8 +2958,8 @@ func testCustomChannelsOraclePricing(ctx context.Context, net *NetworkHarness,
const charlieInvoiceAmount = 104_081_638
require.EqualValues(t.t, charlieInvoiceAmount, numUnits)

// The default routing fees are 1ppm + 1msat per hop, and we have 2
// hops in total.
// The default routing fees are 1ppm + 1msat per hop, and we have 3
// hops in total, but only 1 hop where routing fees are collected in sats.
charliePaidMSat := addRoutingFee(addRoutingFee(lnwire.MilliSatoshi(
decodedInvoice.NumMsat,
)))
Expand Down
Loading