Add a test for MonitorEvent holding when they complete out-of-order

Author: TheBlueMatt

lightning/src/chain/chainmonitor.rs

@@ -728,15 +728,17 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: Sign, C: Deref, T: Deref, F: Deref, L: Deref, P: Deref> even
 #[cfg(test)]
 mod tests {
 	use bitcoin::BlockHeader;
-	use ::{check_added_monitors, check_closed_broadcast, check_closed_event, expect_payment_sent};
-	use ::{get_local_commitment_txn, get_route_and_payment_hash, unwrap_send_err};
+	use ::{check_added_monitors, check_closed_broadcast, check_closed_event};
+	use ::{expect_payment_sent, expect_payment_sent_without_paths, expect_payment_path_successful, get_event_msg};
+	use ::{get_htlc_update_msgs, get_local_commitment_txn, get_revoke_commit_msgs, get_route_and_payment_hash, unwrap_send_err};
 	use chain::{ChannelMonitorUpdateErr, Confirm, Watch};
 	use chain::channelmonitor::LATENCY_GRACE_PERIOD_BLOCKS;
 	use ln::channelmanager::PaymentSendFailure;
 	use ln::features::InitFeatures;
 	use ln::functional_test_utils::*;
+	use ln::msgs::ChannelMessageHandler;
 	use util::errors::APIError;
-	use util::events::{ClosureReason, MessageSendEventsProvider};
+	use util::events::{ClosureReason, MessageSendEvent, MessageSendEventsProvider};
 	use util::test_utils::{OnRegisterOutput, TxOutReference};
 
 	/// Tests that in-block dependent transactions are processed by `block_connected` when not
@@ -782,6 +784,80 @@ mod tests {
 		nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
 	}
 
+	#[test]
+	fn test_async_ooo_offchain_updates() {
+		// Test that if we have multiple offchain updates being persisted and they complete
+		// out-of-order, the ChainMonitor waits until all have completed until informing the
+		// ChannelManager.
+		let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
+		let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
+		let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None]);
+		let nodes = create_network(2, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
+		create_announced_chan_between_nodes(&nodes, 0, 1, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
+
+		// Route two payments to be claimed at the same time.
+		let payment_preimage_1 = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], 1_000_000).0;
+		let payment_preimage_2 = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], 1_000_000).0;
+
+		chanmon_cfgs[1].persister.offchain_sync_monitor_persistences.lock().unwrap().clear();
+		chanmon_cfgs[1].persister.set_update_ret(Err(ChannelMonitorUpdateErr::TemporaryFailure));
+
+		nodes[1].node.claim_funds(payment_preimage_1);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+		nodes[1].node.claim_funds(payment_preimage_2);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+
+		chanmon_cfgs[1].persister.set_update_ret(Ok(()));
+
+		let persistences = chanmon_cfgs[1].persister.offchain_sync_monitor_persistences.lock().unwrap().clone();
+		assert_eq!(persistences.len(), 1);
+		let (funding_txo, updates) = persistences.iter().next().unwrap();
+		assert_eq!(updates.len(), 2);
+
+		// Note that updates is a HashMap so the ordering here is actually random. This shouldn't
+		// fail either way but if it fails intermittently its depending on the ordering of updates.
+		let mut update_iter = updates.iter();
+		nodes[1].chain_monitor.chain_monitor.channel_monitor_updated(*funding_txo, update_iter.next().unwrap().clone()).unwrap();
+		assert!(nodes[1].chain_monitor.release_pending_monitor_events().is_empty());
+		nodes[1].chain_monitor.chain_monitor.channel_monitor_updated(*funding_txo, update_iter.next().unwrap().clone()).unwrap();
+
+		// Now manually walk the commitment signed dance - because we claimed two payments
+		// back-to-back it doesn't fit into the neat walk commitment_signed_dance does.
+
+		let updates = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+		nodes[0].node.handle_update_fulfill_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &updates.update_fulfill_htlcs[0]);
+		expect_payment_sent_without_paths!(nodes[0], payment_preimage_1);
+		nodes[0].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &updates.commitment_signed);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+		let (as_first_raa, as_first_update) = get_revoke_commit_msgs!(nodes[0], nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+		nodes[1].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_first_raa);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+		let bs_second_updates = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+		nodes[1].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_first_update);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+		let bs_first_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[1], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+		nodes[0].node.handle_update_fulfill_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_second_updates.update_fulfill_htlcs[0]);
+		expect_payment_sent_without_paths!(nodes[0], payment_preimage_2);
+		nodes[0].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_second_updates.commitment_signed);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+		nodes[0].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_first_raa);
+		expect_payment_path_successful!(nodes[0]);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+		let (as_second_raa, as_second_update) = get_revoke_commit_msgs!(nodes[0], nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+		nodes[1].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_second_raa);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+		nodes[1].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_second_update);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+		let bs_second_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[1], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+		nodes[0].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_second_raa);
+		expect_payment_path_successful!(nodes[0]);
+		check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+	}
+
 	fn do_chainsync_pauses_events(block_timeout: bool) {
 		// When a chainsync monitor update occurs, any MonitorUpdates should be held before being
 		// passed upstream. This tests that behavior, as well as some ways it might go wrong.

lightning/src/util/test_utils.rs

@@ -172,13 +172,17 @@ pub struct TestPersister {
 	/// When we get an update_persisted_channel call with no ChannelMonitorUpdate, we insert the
 	/// MonitorUpdateId here.
 	pub chain_sync_monitor_persistences: Mutex<HashMap<OutPoint, HashSet<MonitorUpdateId>>>,
+	/// When we get an update_persisted_channel call *with* a ChannelMonitorUpdate, we insert the
+	/// MonitorUpdateId here.
+	pub offchain_sync_monitor_persistences: Mutex<HashMap<OutPoint, HashSet<MonitorUpdateId>>>,
 }
 impl TestPersister {
 	pub fn new() -> Self {
 		Self {
 			update_ret: Mutex::new(Ok(())),
 			next_update_ret: Mutex::new(None),
 			chain_sync_monitor_persistences: Mutex::new(HashMap::new()),
+			offchain_sync_monitor_persistences: Mutex::new(HashMap::new()),
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -206,6 +210,8 @@ impl<Signer: keysinterface::Sign> chainmonitor::Persist<Signer> for TestPersiste
 		}
 		if update.is_none() {
 			self.chain_sync_monitor_persistences.lock().unwrap().entry(funding_txo).or_insert(HashSet::new()).insert(update_id);
+		} else {
+			self.offchain_sync_monitor_persistences.lock().unwrap().entry(funding_txo).or_insert(HashSet::new()).insert(update_id);
 		}
 		ret
 	}