XXX: Take note of some consistency failures

Author: TheBlueMatt

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

@@ -1991,6 +1991,9 @@ impl<Signer: Sign, M: Deref, T: Deref, K: Deref, F: Deref, L: Deref> ChannelMana
 									hash_map::Entry::Occupied(inbound_payment) => {
 										if inbound_payment.get().payment_secret != payment_data.payment_secret {
 											log_trace!(self.logger, "Failing new HTLC with payment_hash {} as it didn't match our expected payment secret.", log_bytes!(payment_hash.0));
+											// XXX: We don't handle this identically here! There is a
+											// second PendingHTLCsForwardable event instead of an immediate
+											// claim, which is incorrect?
 											fail_htlc!(claimable_htlc);
 										} else if inbound_payment.get().min_value_msat.is_some() && payment_data.total_msat < inbound_payment.get().min_value_msat.unwrap() {
 											log_trace!(self.logger, "Failing new HTLC with payment_hash {} as it didn't match our minimum value (had {}, needed {}).",

lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs

@@ -7506,6 +7506,7 @@ fn test_check_htlc_underpaying() {
 	commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[1], nodes[0], payment_event.commitment_msg, false);
 	expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[1]);
 
+	expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[1]); //XXX
 	// Node 3 is expecting payment of 100_000 but received 10_000,
 	// it should fail htlc like we didn't know the preimage.
 	nodes[1].node.process_pending_htlc_forwards();