Fix recv_error receipt limit allowance for v1.9.x
#1459
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nbrownus
force-pushed
the
recv_error-fix-1.9
branch
from
b34d5a0 to
871c2ca
Compare
nbrownus
changed the title
recv_error receipt limit allowancerecv_error receipt limit allowance for v1.9.x
brad-defined
approved these changes
Aug 27, 2025
|
oh, tests failed. I thought I saw all green checks when I approved...sorry. |
I re-ran the tests and they worked. yay. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Since #955 (v1.8.0) we have changed from dropping a tunnel on the 4th
recv_errorreceipt to dropping a tunnel on the 1strecv_errorreceipt. This change reverts to the pre-v1.8.0 behavior.Ultimately, I think it would be best to remove
recv_errormessages entirely and rely ontunnels.drop_inactive(which landed in v1.9.6 andtestpackets to sort out tunnel issues). I am submitting this change to v1.9.x in case we do not want to take on that deprecation at this point but would argue that, at worst, we should in v1.10.