Skip to content

Conversation

TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

One of the most common first-steps in troubleshooting routefinding issues is we ask for the local channel state to determine what the available HTLC bounds are. Thus, we really should be logging the bounds instead, which we do here.

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Mar 14, 2024

Isn't this more or less redundant since we already log next_outbound_htlc_limit_msat for any first-hops we ignore?:

if let Some(details) = first_hop_details {
log_trace!(logger,
"First hop candidate next_outbound_htlc_limit_msat: {}",
details.next_outbound_htlc_limit_msat,
);
}

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

That won't tell us if the channel is disabled or otherwise missing, but, fair point, it does answer it in some cases.

One of the most common first-steps in troubleshooting routefinding
issues is we ask for the local channel state to determine what the
available HTLC bounds are. While we log first-hop channel details
when we decline to use them, this doesn't tell us if we have
missing channels, and thus here we log all first-hop channels at
the start.

We also take this opportunity to log the limits that were violated
any time we log that we're not using a channel, rather than only
when its a first-hop.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2024-03-log-outbound-channels branch from 44c08df to 136e89e Compare May 30, 2024 15:12
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Rebased and updated a bit, I think this this is worth doing, and also took the opportunity to log the limit that is violated any time we log that we're not using a channel, rather than only when its a first-hop.

Copy link
Contributor

@valentinewallace valentinewallace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, not sure if @tnull wants another look.

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still think it's a bit redundant, but then again, it's also not overly spammy.

Going ahead and landing this.

@tnull tnull merged commit c57b94a into lightningdevkit:main May 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants