decorators (instead of overloading JsonDB._convert_dict and
_convert_value)
- stored_in for elements of a StoreDict
- stored_as for singletons
- extra register methods are defined for key conversions
This commit was adapted from the jsonpatch branch
A new config API is introduced, and ~all of the codebase is adapted to it.
The old API is kept but mainly only for dynamic usage where its extra flexibility is needed.
Using examples, the old config API looked this:
```
>>> config.get("request_expiry", 86400)
604800
>>> config.set_key("request_expiry", 86400)
>>>
```
The new config API instead:
```
>>> config.WALLET_PAYREQ_EXPIRY_SECONDS
604800
>>> config.WALLET_PAYREQ_EXPIRY_SECONDS = 86400
>>>
```
The old API operated on arbitrary string keys, the new one uses
a static ~enum-like list of variables.
With the new API:
- there is a single centralised list of config variables, as opposed to
these being scattered all over
- no more duplication of default values (in the getters)
- there is now some (minimal for now) type-validation/conversion for
the config values
closes https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/5640
closes https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/5649
Note: there is yet a third API added here, for certain niche/abstract use-cases,
where we need a reference to the config variable itself.
It should only be used when needed:
```
>>> var = config.cv.WALLET_PAYREQ_EXPIRY_SECONDS
>>> var
<ConfigVarWithConfig key='request_expiry'>
>>> var.get()
604800
>>> var.set(3600)
>>> var.get_default_value()
86400
>>> var.is_set()
True
>>> var.is_modifiable()
True
```
- unused
- the client was already refusing to fund such lockup addresses (if the server asked)
- no existing unit tests for it, and as the choice is up to the server, it is hard to create tests
- no clear reason to want to use p2sh-nested scripts here, aside from curiosity
- separate AddressSynchronizer from Wallet and LNWatcher
- the AddressSynchronizer class is referred to as 'adb' (address database)
- Use callbacks to replace overloaded methods
These methods return a list of channels that can be rebalanced,
in order to receive or send a given amount.
Also add 'channels' parameter to submarine swaps.
Previously, swaps were not considering which channel to use.
When we do not have liquidity to pay an invoice:
- add 'rebalance' option in order to pay an invoice
- use the suggested channel in the 'swap' option
When we do not have the liquidity to receive an invoice:
- add 'Rebalance' and 'Swap' buttons to the receive tab
I believe lightning requests created before https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/7730
can have an amount of None - ones created after have amount 0 instead.
We could do a wallet db upgrade potentially.
Regardless, the type hint is `get_amount_sat(self) -> Union[int, str, None]`,
so None should be handled. (well, arguably "!" should be handled too...)
```
E | gui.qt.exception_window.Exception_Hook | exception caught by crash reporter
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "...\electrum\electrum\gui\qt\request_list.py", line 101, in item_changed
self.parent.show_receive_request(req)
File "...\electrum\electrum\gui\qt\main_window.py", line 1279, in show_receive_request
URI = req.get_bip21_URI(lightning=bip21_lightning)
File "...\electrum\electrum\invoices.py", line 164, in get_bip21_URI
amount = int(self.get_amount_sat())
TypeError: int() argument must be a string, a bytes-like object or a real number, not 'NoneType'
```
```
E | gui.qt.exception_window.Exception_Hook | exception caught by crash reporter
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "...\electrum\electrum\gui\qt\request_list.py", line 101, in item_changed
self.parent.show_receive_request(req)
File "...\electrum\electrum\gui\qt\main_window.py", line 1281, in show_receive_request
can_receive_lightning = self.wallet.lnworker and req.get_amount_sat() <= self.wallet.lnworker.num_sats_can_receive()
TypeError: '<=' not supported between instances of 'NoneType' and 'decimal.Decimal'
```
Tolerates discrepancies in the swap amount crosschecks. To ensure we
calculate the send/receive amounts correctly we apply a check, using
amount inversion. The inversion is not exact up to +-1 due to used
floor and ceil functions in the methods. They are not invertible,
which is why we relax the check to off-by-ones.
- document SwapManager._get_recv_amount and SwapManager._get_send_amount
- change calculations so that they match the boltz-backend
- note that in the reverse swap case, the server does not care about the on-chain claim tx the client
needs to pay for. This introduced some implicit hacks and inconsistencies in the code in the past,
it is still a bit ugly but at least this is now explicit.
- SwapManager._get_recv_amount and SwapManager._get_send_amount are now proper inverses of each other
-----
Here are some code snippets to play around with in Qt console.
For the forward swap case:
```
from electrum import ecc; lnworker = wallet.lnworker; sm = lnworker.swap_manager
invoice = network.run_from_another_thread(lnworker.create_invoice(amount_msat=3000000*1000, message="swap", expiry=86400))[1]; request_data = {"type": "submarine", "pairId": "BTC/BTC", "orderSide": "sell", "invoice": invoice, "refundPublicKey": ecc.GENERATOR.get_public_key_bytes().hex()}
network.send_http_on_proxy('post', sm.api_url + '/createswap', json=request_data, timeout=30)
sm.get_send_amount(3000000, is_reverse=False)
sm.get_recv_amount(3026730, is_reverse=False)
```
For the reverse swap case:
```
from electrum import ecc; import os; lnworker = wallet.lnworker; sm = lnworker.swap_manager
request_data = {"type": "reversesubmarine", "pairId": "BTC/BTC", "orderSide": "buy", "invoiceAmount": 3000000, "preimageHash": os.urandom(32).hex(), "claimPublicKey": ecc.GENERATOR.get_public_key_bytes().hex()}
network.send_http_on_proxy('post', sm.api_url + '/createswap', json=request_data, timeout=30)
sm.get_recv_amount(3000000, is_reverse=True)
sm.get_send_amount(2974443, is_reverse=True)
```
In a normal (forward) swap (onchain->offchain):
send_amount = receive_amount * (1 + service_percentage) + normal_fee ,
and vice versa:
receive_amount = (send_amount + normal_fee) / (1 + service_percentage) ,
i.e., the service fee is charged on the received offchain amount.
ThomasV