cli: add group key support to channel related calls.

[guggero]

Depends on lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1498.

Fixes lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1497.
Fixes lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1183.

@ZZiigguurraatt can you help test this PR please?

[ZZiigguurraatt]

@ZZiigguurraatt can you help test this PR please?

Working on it.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

For litcli ln sendpayment, why do we have the requirement Note that this will only work in concert with the --keysend argument.? This conflicts with the statement

One can either specify the full
  parameters of the payment, or just use a payment request which encodes
  all the payment details.

  If payment isn't manually specified, then only a payment request needs
  to be passed using the --pay_req argument.

.

Confused if this comment belongs here or in lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1498 ?

[ZZiigguurraatt]

litcli ln sendpayment - Send a payment over Lightning, potentially using a mulit-asset channel as the first hop needs multi spelled right.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

Here we also need to mention group_key

https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R666-R667

https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R671-R672

[ZZiigguurraatt]

At https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R451 you say Pay an invoice over lightning using an asset. and at https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R298-R299 you say Send a payment over Lightning, potentially using a mulit-asset channel as the first hop. I think these descriptions should be more consistent so we aren't confused there is some major difference in functionality.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

At https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R37 you say Interact with the Lightning Network., but I think we should be more specific so that when running litcli ln we know under NAME that this is about taproot assets without having to read through the description of each sub-command in detail.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

In https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R301-R302 you say To send an multi-asset LN payment to a single hop, the --asset_id=X argument should be used. This does not make any mention of group_key. Also, I'm a bit confused because with this command, I must specify either a asset_id or group_key, there is no other option, but the word choice leads me to believe that maybe I can send a non multi-asset payment with the command.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

If all these things can be fixed, I think we can also close lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1183 .

[guggero]

Here we also need to mention group_key

https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R666-R667

https://github.com/lightninglabs/lightning-terminal/pull/1052/files#diff-f9c05a4a36f7d2dcc59718bda9351aeab75a35de48e367bcd08d8cbf1f4be8f7R671-R672

Will update. As an aside: if you go to the "Files changed" tab in a PR, then you can add comments to a specific line of a PR. And then you can also group multiple such comments into a single review, which makes it easy to see and resolve. Less work for you and also less work for the author.

[guggero]

@ZZiigguurraatt thanks for your feedback! I think I've addressed all your comments in the latest push.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

As an aside: if you go to the "Files changed" tab in a PR, then you can add comments to a specific line of a PR.

this did not work for lines out of range from the edits you made

[guggero]

Fixed the compilation issue.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

@ZZiigguurraatt thanks for your feedback! I think I've addressed all your comments in the latest push.

Okay, what do you think about this comment I made above "If I try sendpayment --pay_req= instead, I get [litcli] the --keysend flag must be set.", but litcli ln payinvoice -h says This command is a shortcut for 'sendpayment --pay_req=', so I feel like we are getting some conflicting information. This is also related to #1052 (comment)

[guggero]

@ZZiigguurraatt thanks for your feedback! I think I've addressed all your comments in the latest push.

Okay, what do you think about this comment I made above "If I try sendpayment --pay_req= instead, I get [litcli] the --keysend flag must be set.", but litcli ln payinvoice -h says This command is a shortcut for 'sendpayment --pay_req=', so I feel like we are getting some conflicting information. This is also related to #1052 (comment)

I didn't see that comment anywhere before...
But I'll look into it.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

I didn't see that comment anywhere before...

actually, maybe you don't get them unless I click "submit review"? I thought that meant I was satisfied with changes, but looks like I actually have a few options when I submit.

[guggero]

Okay, so the attempt at making This command is a shortcut for 'sendpayment --pay_req= work made me realize that we never intended the sendpayment command to work in any other way than with --keysend.

This whole confusion came out of the attempt to re-use a lot of the description and also validation logic from lnd. But that just made it very hard to understand.

So I did this instead:

• Remove the This command is a shortcut for 'sendpayment --pay_req= part from the description of payinvoice.
• Updated the description of sendpayment to make it very explicit the command is only for keysend payments.
• I considered renaming the command to keysend and removing the need for the --keysend flag. But that would break existing users/scripts and would lead to a bunch of duplicated code. So I decided to leave things this way. It's a bit verbose but at least the description should be more clear now.

I think with that things should be way more clear. I hope you agree with the changes, @ZZiigguurraatt.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

I tested FundChannel and I'm getting the following:

fd3988c2dd94:/$ tapcli assets groups
{
    "groups":  {
        "025ab6480a9af4d284c1e7c4b9391e2198cd54e96f41c3450499b51b0af194af57":  {
            "assets":  [
                {
                    "id":  "f1d09444f6d9935d1a22a00416dbcb9a2c1eb7d923d322871e4df1ce024415af",
                    "amount":  "2100000",
                    "lock_time":  0,
                    "relative_lock_time":  0,
                    "tag":  "Asset1",
                    "meta_hash":  "827c23a4b1a5f4f9a9a42e61aa7bf7bf7e7925b4723728b60ad1918d632e2b0a",
                    "type":  "NORMAL",
                    "version":  "ASSET_VERSION_V0"
                },
                {
                    "id":  "4b4be6b3f93c992aac615d7534eb52a81c2d077fb35717e0d8ac1ba226e1ba54",
                    "amount":  "2100000",
                    "lock_time":  0,
                    "relative_lock_time":  0,
                    "tag":  "Asset1",
                    "meta_hash":  "827c23a4b1a5f4f9a9a42e61aa7bf7bf7e7925b4723728b60ad1918d632e2b0a",
                    "type":  "NORMAL",
                    "version":  "ASSET_VERSION_V0"
                },
                {
                    "id":  "6c360362f0f62bcf0a6abd1b50d3c77dfd6d685fdbbfd9804a2b1f786cd0e9b5",
                    "amount":  "2100000",
                    "lock_time":  0,
                    "relative_lock_time":  0,
                    "tag":  "Asset1",
                    "meta_hash":  "827c23a4b1a5f4f9a9a42e61aa7bf7bf7e7925b4723728b60ad1918d632e2b0a",
                    "type":  "NORMAL",
                    "version":  "ASSET_VERSION_V0"
                }
            ]
        }
    }
}
fd3988c2dd94:/$ 
fd3988c2dd94:/$ 
fd3988c2dd94:/$ 
fd3988c2dd94:/$ litcli ln fundchannel --node_key 025974657e16df81f32623ed5fe33d49529b26659ef2de9a87d8b102e576b26af3 --asset_amount 100000 --group_key 025ab6480a9af4d284c1e7c4b9391e2198cd54e96f41c3450499b51b0af194af57
[litcli] asset with ID  not found or no combined UTXOs with at least amount 100000 is available
fd3988c2dd94:/$ 

[guggero]

[litcli] asset with ID not found or no combined UTXOs with at least amount 100000 is available

Oops, my bad, sorry. Fixed that issue and tested the flow manually as well this time.

[gijswijs]

Made some comments throughout. The most important one is this one: #1052 (comment)

The others are all nits.

I tested the itest locally.

[gijswijs]

tACK

[ZZiigguurraatt]

OK, things took longer on my end with some stupid mistakes managing multiple in flight PR that need to be coordinated on top of each other. I'm now able to get it to work, but I get the following error if I don't specify a fee rate

4bb544a08a1e:/$ litcli ln fundchannel --node_key  03d344679dc9a285183618a3eb1be0c897c9e6833f5f8c80513dd6534706e9ed59 --asset_amount 1000000 --group_key  02220e67ea8260deefdda3d514de83e2634ac0611e8133af21855ce43981dc598c
[litcli] error funding channel: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = fee rate must be specified
4bb544a08a1e:/$

however,

4bb544a08a1e:/$ litcli ln fundchannel -h
NAME:
   litcli ln fundchannel - Open a Taproot Asset channel with a node on the Lightning Network.

USAGE:
   litcli ln fundchannel [command options] [arguments...]

CATEGORY:
   Channels

OPTIONS:
   --node_key value       the identity public key of the target node/peer serialized in compressed format, must already be connected to
   --sat_per_vbyte value  (optional) a manual fee expressed in sat/vByte that should be used when crafting the transaction (default: 0)
   --push_amt value       the number of satoshis to give the remote side as part of the initial commitment state, this is equivalent to first opening a channel and then sending the remote party funds, but done all in one step; therefore, this is equivalent to a donation to the remote party, unless they reimburse the funds in another way (outside the protocol) (default: 0)
   --asset_amount value   The amount of the asset to commit to the channel. (default: 0)
   --asset_id value       The asset ID to commit to the channel; cannot be used at the same time as --group_key
   --group_key value      The group key to use for selecting assets to commit to the channel; cannot be used at the same time as --asset_id
   
4bb544a08a1e:/$ 

tells me the fee rate should be optional.

I don't remember having to do this last time I ran lncli openchannel.

Also, is (default: 0) supposed to actually be 0 or some auto fee selection (both in litcli ln fundchannel and lncli openchannel?

I did try

4bb544a08a1e:/$ litcli ln fundchannel --node_key  03d344679dc9a285183618a3eb1be0c897c9e6833f5f8c80513dd6534706e9ed59 --asset_amount 1000000 --group_key  02220e67ea8260deefdda3d514de83e2634ac0611e8133af21855ce43981dc598c --sat_per_vbyte 1
[litcli] error funding channel: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = error funding channel: fee rate 250 sat/kw too low, min_relay_fee: 253 sat/kw
4bb544a08a1e:/$ 

and

4bb544a08a1e:/$ litcli ln fundchannel --node_key  03d344679dc9a285183618a3eb1be0c897c9e6833f5f8c80513dd6534706e9ed59 --asset_amount 1000000 --group_key  02220e67ea8260deefdda3d514de83e2634ac0611e8133af21855ce43981dc598c --sat_per_vbyte 0
[litcli] error funding channel: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = fee rate must be specified
4bb544a08a1e:/$ 

and then finally what worked was

4bb544a08a1e:/$ litcli ln fundchannel --node_key  03d344679dc9a285183618a3eb1be0c897c9e6833f5f8c80513dd6534706e9ed59 --asset_amount 1000000 --group_key  02220e67ea8260deefdda3d514de83e2634ac0611e8133af21855ce43981dc598c --sat_per_vbyte 3
{
	"txid": "17522c5c0384ed7f8ea7ebc76c402f1df768a003f97ca7a3fe5545af042584f2"
}
4bb544a08a1e:/$ 

[ZZiigguurraatt]

I am still going through some other tests, so I have not approved this yet.

[ZZiigguurraatt]

I don't remember having to do this last time I ran lncli openchannel.

I just re-tested and this works:

4bb544a08a1e:/$ lncli openchannel --node_key 03d344679dc9a285183618a3eb1be0c897c9e6833f5f8c80513dd6534706e9ed59 --local_amt 5000000
{
    "funding_txid": "29ab2aebc847708433b1b0d879fa2308b6e81a6c6d7c12ea97642e60bea357d3"
}
4bb544a08a1e:/$ 

[guggero]

I don't remember having to do this last time I ran lncli openchannel.

I think, starting with lnd 18 or 19 it's now required in lnd as well. Depending on a (potentially faulty) estimated fee has given us too many user support issues.

Also, is (default: 0) supposed to actually be 0

This is an unfortunate way the CLI library displays things. A numeric value of 0 just means "by default this flag is not set". So no, there is no auto fee estimation, you have to specify a value.

error funding channel: fee rate 250 sat/kw too low, min_relay_fee: 253 sat/kw

I did fix this issue with an additional commit in lightninglabs/taproot-assets#1498, so you should be able to specify --sat_per_vbyte 1 now.

[GeorgeTsagk]

Lgtm!