Replace `rpc::CoreTxIter` with `list_transactions` fn.
This fixes a bug where `CoreTxIter` attempts to call `listtransactions`
immediately after a tx result is filtered (instead of being returned),
when in fact, the correct logic will be to pop another tx result.
The new logic also ensures that tx results are returned in chonological
order. The test `test_list_transactions` verifies this. We also now
ensure that `page_size` is between the range `[0 to 1000]` otherwise an
error is returned.
Some needless cloning is removed from `from_config` as well as logging
improvements.
### Description
This changes `get_balance()` function so that it returns balance separated in 4 categories:
- available
- trusted-pending
- untrusted-pending
- immature
Fixes #238
### Notes to the reviewers
Based on #614
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've updated tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
Unfortunately to fix all the problems, I had to do a complete re-implementation of `RpcBlockchain`.
**The new implementation fixes the following:**
* We can track more than 100 scriptPubKeys
* We can obtain more than 1000 transactions per sync
* Transaction "metadata" for already-syned transactions are updated when we introduce new scriptPubKeys
**`RpcConfig` changes:**
* Introduce `RpcSyncParams`.
* Remove `RpcConfig::skip_blocks` (this is replaced by `RpcSyncParams::start_time`).
### Notes to the reviewers
* The `RpcConfig` structure is changed. It will be good to confirm whether this is an okay change.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
~* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature~
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Before this commit, the rpc backend would not notice immature utxos
(`listunspent` does not return them), making the rpc balance different
to other blockchain implementations.
New `RpcBlockchain` implementation with various fixes
The new implementation fixes the following:
* We can track more than 100 scriptPubKeys
* We can obtain more than 1000 transactions per sync
* `TransactionDetails` for already-synced transactions are updated when
new scriptPubKeys are introduced (fixing the missing balance/coins
issue of supposedly tracked scriptPubKeys)
`RpcConfig` changes:
* Introduce `RpcSyncParams`.
* Remove `RpcConfig::skip_blocks` (this is replaced by
`RpcSyncParams::start_time`).
We were wrongly considering the sum of "effective value" (i.e. value -
fee cost) when reporting an early "insufficient funds" error in the
branch and bound coin selection.
This commit fixes essentially two issues:
- Very high fee rates could cause a panic during the i64 -> u64
conversion because we assumed the sum of effective values would never
be negative
- Since we were comparing the sum of effective values of *all* the UTXOs
(even the optional UTXOs with negative effective value) with the target
we'd like to reach, we could in some cases error and tell the user we
don't have enough funds, while in fact we do! Since we are not required
to spend any of the optional UTXOs, so we could just ignore the ones
that *cost us* money to spend and excluding them could potentially
allow us to reach the target.
There's a third issue that was present before and remains even with this
fix: when we report the "available" funds in the error, we are ignoring
UTXOs with negative effective value, so it may look like there are less
funds in the wallet than there actually are.
I don't know how to convey the right message the user: if we actually
consider them we just make the "needed" value larger and larger (which
may be confusing, because if the user asks BDK to send 10k satoshis, why
do we say that we actually need 100k?), while if we don't we could report
an incorrect "available" value.
### Notes to the reviewers
I'm opening this as a draft before adding tests because I want to gather some feedback on the available vs needed error reporting. I personally think reporting a reasonable "needed" value is more important than the "available", because in a wallet app I would expect this is the value that would be shown to the user.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Fix the early InsufficientFunds error in the branch and bound
We were wrongly considering the sum of "effective value" (i.e. value -
fee cost) when reporting an early "insufficient funds" error in the
branch and bound coin selection.
This commit fixes essentially two issues:
- Very high fee rates could cause a panic during the i64 -> u64
conversion because we assumed the sum of effective values would never
be negative
- Since we were comparing the sum of effective values of *all* the UTXOs
(even the optional UTXOs with negative effective value) with the target
we'd like to reach, we could in some cases error and tell the user we
don't have enough funds, while in fact we do! Since we are not required
to spend any of the optional UTXOs, so we could just ignore the ones
that *cost us* money to spend and excluding them could potentially
allow us to reach the target.
There's a third issue that was present before and remains even with this
fix: when we report the "available" funds in the error, we are ignoring
UTXOs with negative effective value, so it may look like there are less
funds in the wallet than there actually are.
I don't know how to convey the right message the user: if we actually
consider them we just make the "needed" value larger and larger (which
may be confusing, because if the user asks BDK to send 10k satoshis, why
do we say that we actually need 100k?), while if we don't we could report
an incorrect "available" value.
Before this commit `fee_amount` and `amount_needed` were passed as independent
parameters. From the perspective of coin selection algorithms, they are always
used jointly for the same purpose, to create a coin selection with a total
effective value greater than it's summed values.
This commit removes the abstraction that the use of the two parameter
introduced by consolidating both into a single parameter, `target_amount`, who
carries their values added up.
Resolves: #641
### Notes to the reviewers
I just updated old tests and didn't create new ones because almost all changes
are renames and "logic changes" (like the addition of the selection fee) are
tested in the modified tests.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
re-ACK e8df3d2d91927edb9a339c664f0603c47622e4b0 - I tested with the fuzzer, run it for 13,000,000 iterations, couldn't find any crash :)
```
$ cargo run --features="keys-bip39 key-value-db rpc" --example rpcwallet
Compiling bitcoin_hashes v0.9.7
Compiling bip39 v1.0.1
Compiling bdk v0.20.1-dev (/home/node01/Dev/wbdk)
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 19.64s
Running `target/debug/examples/rpcwallet`
>> Setting up bitcoind
thread 'main' panicked at 'We should always have downloaded path: Called a method requiring a feature to be set, but it's not', examples/rpcwallet.rs:56:51
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
```
This PR adds `electrsd/bitcoind_22_0` to `required-features`, making clear that this lib is needed to run this example..
```
$ cargo run --features="keys-bip39 key-value-db rpc electrsd/bitcoind_22_0" --example rpcwallet
Blocking waiting for file lock on package cache
Compiling electrsd v0.19.1
Compiling bdk v0.20.1-dev (/home/node01/Dev/wbdk)
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 10.27s
Running `target/debug/examples/rpcwallet`
>> Setting up bitcoind
>> bitcoind setup complete
Available coins in Core wallet : 50.00000000 BTC
>> Setting up BDK wallet
>> BDK wallet setup complete.
Available initial coins in BDK wallet : 0 sats
>> Sending coins: Core --> BDK, 10 BTC
>> Received coins in BDK wallet
Available balance in BDK wallet: 1000000000 sats
>> Sending coins: BDK --> Core, 5 BTC
>> Coins sent to Core wallet
Remaining BDK wallet balance: 499999859 sats
Congrats!! you made your first test transaction with bdk and bitcoin core.
```
Before this commit `fee_amount` and `amount_needed` were passed as independent
parameters. From the perspective of coin selection algorithms, they are always
used jointly for the same purpose, to create a coin selection with a total
effective value greater than it's summed values.
This commit removes the abstraction that the use of the two parameter
introduced by consolidating both into a single parameter, `target_amount`, who
carries their values added up.
This PR mainly fixes two bugs:
1. TXIN_BASE_WEIGHT wrongly included the `script_len` (Fixes #160)
2. We wouldn't take into account the segwit header in the fee calculation, which could have resulted in a transaction with a lower feerate than the requested one
3. In tests we used to push 108 bytes on the witness as a fake signature, but we should have pushed 106 instead
I also add a test to reproduce the conditions of #660, to check if it's solved. Turns out it's been solved already in #630, but if you're curious about what the bug was, here it is: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/660#issuecomment-1196436776
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
Daniela Brozzoni [Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:08:23 +0000 (18:08 +0200)]
Better customize signing in taproot transactions
We would previously always try to sign with the taproot internal
key, and try to sign all the script leaves hashes.
Instead, add the `sign_with_tap_internal_key` and `TapLeaveOptions`
parameters, to be able to specify if we should sign with the internal
key, and exactly which leaves we should sign.
Fixes #616
Issue #660 has been fixed by 32ae95f463f62c42c6d6aec62c1832a30298fce4,
when we moved the change calculation inside the coin selection.
This commit just adds a test to make sure that the problem is fixed.
We would previously push 108 bytes on a P2WPKH witness
to simulate signature + pubkey. This was wrong: we should push
106 bytes instead.
The max satisfaction size for a P2WPKH is 112 WU:
elements in witness (1 byte, 1WU) + OP_PUSH (1 byte, 1WU) +
pk (33 bytes, 33 WU) + OP_PUSH (1 byte, 1WU) + signature and sighash
(72 bytes, 72 WU) + scriptsig len (1 byte, 4WU)
We should push on the witness pk + signature and sighash. This is 105
WU. Since we push just once instead of twice, we add 1WU for the OP_PUSH
we are omitting.
Take into account the segwit tx header when...
...selecting coins
We take into account the larger segwit tx header for every
transaction, not just the segwit ones. The reason for this is that
we prefer to overestimate the fees for the transaction than
underestimating them - the former might create txs with a slightly
higher feerate than the requested one, while the latter might
create txs with a slightly lower one - or worse, invalid (<1 sat/vbyte)!
We would before calculate the TXIN_BASE_WEIGHT as prev_txid (32 bytes) +
prev_vout (4 bytes) + sequence (4 bytes) + script_sig_len (1 bytes), but
that's wrong: the script_sig_len shouldn't be included, as miniscript
already includes it in the `max_satisfaction_size` calculation.
Fixes #160
We would previously calculate the fee amount in two steps:
1. Add the weight of the empty transaction
2. Add the weight of each output
That's unnecessary: you can just use the weight of the transaction
*after* the output addition. This is clearer, but also avoids a
rare bug: if there are many outputs, adding them would cause the
"number of outputs" transaction parameter lenght to increase, and we
wouldn't notice it.
This might still happen when adding the drain output - this
commit also adds a comment as a reminder.
Disallow negative, NaN, infinite or subnormal fee rate values.
### Notes to the reviewers
This commit is technically an API break because it makes the `FeeRate::from_sat_per_vb` function non-const. I think it's worth it compared to the risk of having completely nonsensical fee rates (that can break the coin selection in interesting ways).
EDIT: it's also a breaking change because our code can now panic in scenarios where it didn't before. Again, I think it's worth it.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Currently SqliteDatabase::new takes a String as path,
with this change, it now accepts any type that implements
AsRef<Path>.
### Notes to the reviewers
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
The former way to compute and create change was inside `create_tx`, just after
performing coin selection.
It blocked the opportunity to have an "ensemble" algorithm to decide between
multiple coin selection algorithms based on a metric, like Waste.
Now, change is not created inside `coin_select` but the change amount and the
possibility to create change is decided inside the `coin_select` method. In
this way, change is associated with the coin selection algorithm that generated
it, and a method to decide between them can be implemented.
Fixes #147.
<!-- Describe the purpose of this PR, what's being adding and/or fixed -->
<!-- In this section you can include notes directed to the reviewers, like explaining why some parts
of the PR were done in a specific way -->
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
The former way to compute and create change was inside `create_tx`, just after
performing coin selection.
It blocked the opportunity to have an "ensemble" algorithm to decide between
multiple coin selection algorithms based on a metric, like Waste.
Now, change isn't created inside `coin_select` but the change amount and the
possibility to create change is decided inside the `coin_select` method. In
this way, change is associated with the coin selection algorithm that generated
it, and a method to decide between them can be implemented.
^ However, only for electrum-based `Blockchain` implementations. For RPC and Compact Block Filters, syncing works differently, and so are the bugs - I have created a separate ticket for this (#677).
### Description
Previously, electrum-based blockchain implementations only synced for `scriptPubKey`s that are already cached in `Database`.
This PR introduces a feedback mechanism, that uses `stop_gap` and the difference between "current index" and "last active index" to determine whether we need to cache more `scriptPubKeys`.
The `WalletSync::wallet_setup` trait now may return an `Error::MissingCachedScripts` error which contains the number of extra `scriptPubKey`s to cache, in order to satisfy `stop_gap` for the next call.
`Wallet::sync` now calls `WalletSync` in a loop, caching in-between subsequent calls (if needed).
#### Notes to reviewers
1. The caveat to this solution is that it is not the most efficient. Every call to `WalletSync::wallet_setup` starts polling the Electrum-based server for `scriptPubKey`s starting from index 0.
However, I feel like this solution is the least "destructive" to the API of `Blockchain`. Also, once the `bdk_core` sync logic is integration, we can select specific ranges of `scriptPubKey`s to sync.
2. Also note that this PR only fixes the issue for electrum-based `Blockchain` implementations (currently `blockchain::electrum` and `blockchain::esplora` only).
3. Another thing to note is that, although `Database` assumes 1-2 keychains, the current `WalletSync` "feedback" only returns one number (which is interpreted as the larger "missing count" of the two keychains). This is done for simplicity, and because we are planning to only have one keychain per database in the future.
4. Please have a read of https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/pull/672#issuecomment-1186929465 for additional context.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Fix wallet sync not finding coins of addresses which are not cached
Previously, electrum-based blockchain implementations only synced for
`scriptPubKey`s that are already cached in `Database`.
This PR introduces a feedback mechanism, that uses `stop_gap` and the
difference between "current index" and "last active index" to determine
whether we need to cache more `scriptPubKeys`.
The `WalletSync::wallet_setup` trait now may return an
`Error::MissingCachedScripts` error which contains the number of extra
`scriptPubKey`s to cache, in order to satisfy `stop_gap` for the next call.
`Wallet::sync` now calls `WalletSync` in a loop, cacheing inbetween
subsequent calls (if needed).
This test is to ensure there are no regressions when we later change
internal logic of `Wallet`. A single descriptor wallet should always get
a new address with `AddressIndex::New` even if we alternate grabbing
internal/external keychains.
I thought of adding this during work on #647
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
### Description
Seems like `doc(include = "../README.md")` doesn't include the readme file as doc for the dummy struct. This might be due to a difference in Rust edition used back then or something.
Fixes #637
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
`get_checksum_bytes()` returns a descriptor checksum as `[u8; 8]` instead of `String`, potentially improving performance and memory usage.
In addition to this, since descriptors only use characters that fit within a UTF-8 8-bit code unit ([US-ASCII](https://www.charset.org/charsets/us-ascii)), there is no need to use the `char` type (which is 4 bytes). This can also potentially bring in some performance and memory-usage benefits.
### Notes to the reviewers
This is useful because we will be using descriptor checksums for indexing operations in the near future (multi-descriptor wallets #486 ).
Refer to comments by @afilini :
* https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/pull/647#discussion_r921184366
* https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/pull/647#discussion_r921914696
* https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/pull/654#discussion_r921980876
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
Introduce `get_checksum_bytes` method and improvements
`get_checksum_bytes` returns a descriptor checksum as `[u8; 8]` instead
of `String`, potentially improving performance and memory usage.
In addition to this, since descriptors only use charaters that fit
within a UTF-8 8-bit code unit, there is no need to use the `char` type
(which is 4 bytes). This can also potentially bring in some performance
and memory-usage benefits.
Seems like `doc(include = "../README.md")` doesn't include the readme file as docs for the dummy struct. This might be due to a difference in Rust edition used back then or something
📢 Release 0.20.0 is out! Highlights include bug fixes for the ElectrumBlockchain and descriptor templates, discourage fee sniping in tx building, and new tx signing options. A big thanks to our past and latest new contributors. For all changes see: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/releases/tag/v0.20.0
Usually we don't have any prefix except for methods that can *add* to a list or replace the list entirely (e.g. `add_recipients` vs `set_recipients`)
I missed this during review of #611
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
It is critical to ensure `Wallet::get_address` with `AddressIndex::new` always returns a new and unused address.
This bug seems to be Electrum-specific. The fix is to check address index updates to ensure that newly suggested indexes are not smaller than indexes already in database.
### Notes to the reviewers
I have written new tests in `/testutils/blockchain_tests.rs` that tests all `Blockchain` implementations.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
~* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API~
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
This bug seems to be Electrum-specific. The fix is to check the
proposed changes against the current state of the database. Ensure
newly suggested indexes are not smaller than indexes already in
database.
Changes:
* Check index updates before they are applied to database during
Electrum Blockchain sync (Thank you @rajarshimaitra for providing
an elegant solution).
> address validators are supposed to be used for a slightly different thing, which is when you ask the hardware wallet to independently generate the address for a derivation index and then you compare what you see on your computer/phone with what the hardware wallet is displaying
> in the case of change addresses i agree that it's not as important (because as you said the device can just refuse to sign) but for consistency we implemented it for both external and internal addresses
> more broadly, they can be thought of as a way to get a callback every time an address is generated, which may also be useful for other things (for example when i was working on a green-compatible client written in bdk i used that feature to ping the server every time a new address was generated, because that's required in their protocol)
> that said, i think currently pretty much nobody uses them and i am myself moving away from the concept that "everything needs to happen inside bdk": currently my mindset is targeted more towards reducing complexity by breaking down individual parts and wrapping them or making them "extensible" in some way
> that is to say: if you want to verify addresses in your hardware wallet you don't necessarily need bdk to do it for you (actually, you would still have to implement the callback manually), you can just call bdk to get a new addr and then ping the device yourself. and this would allow us to reduce complexity and delete some code
> actually, here's an idea: unless somebody here is opposed to this, i can make a pr to deprecate address validators in the next (0.20) release. if after that again nobody complains we can completely remove them and point users towards different strategies to achieve the same goal
### Checklists
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
This test is to ensure there are no regressions when we later change
internal logic of `Wallet`. A single descriptor wallet should always get
a new address with `AddressIndex::New` even if we alternate grabbing
internal/external keychains.
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
This PR is to add 2 keys(`try_finalize` and `remove_partial_sigs`) in `SignOptions`. See this issue for detail https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/612
### Notes to the reviewers
~I found the negative naming of these 2 new keys `do_not_finalize` and `do_not_remove_partial_sigs` are a bit confusing(like most negative named paremeter/variable). Should we actually change it back to positive naming(`do_finalize` and `do_remove_partial_sigs`)?~
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
### Description
This PR create a new trait `blockchain::GetBlockHash` with a `get_block_hash` method which returns a block hash given the block height. This has been implemented for all blockchain backends.
Fixes #603
### Notes to the reviewers
I haven't updated the `CHANGELOG.md` and docs. Am I suppose to update it for this change?
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [ ] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
Vladimir Fomene [Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:42:02 +0000 (20:42 +0100)]
Get block hash by its height
Create blockchain::GetBlockHash trait
with a method to get block hash given
a block height. Then, implement this
trait for all backends (Electrum, RPC
, Esplora, CBF). Referenced in issue 603.
#144 is describing a bug that doesn't seem to happen in BDK master anymore (BDK not respecting BIP125 rule 2). This PR just adds a test to check that the bug is fixed.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Daniela Brozzoni [Thu, 30 Jun 2022 18:31:38 +0000 (20:31 +0200)]
Remove wrong TODO comment in build_fee_bump
The proposed solution is bad for privacy as well.
Let's call the initial change output, which is normally shrink when you
fee bump, change#1, and the extra output aforementioned change#2 (as,
in this case, it's going to be a change output as well). If you add change#2
you might not revel change#1, but you're still revealing change#2.
You're not improving your privacy, and you're wasting money in fees.
With this PR we start considering how many confirmations a coinbase has. If it's not mature yet, we don't use it for building transactions.
Fixes #413
### Notes to the reviewers
This PR is based on #611, review that one before reviewing this 😄
007c5a78335a3e9f6c9c28a077793c2ba34bbb4e adds a coinbase parameter to `populate_test_db`, to specify if you want the db to be populated with immature coins. This is useful for `test_spend_coinbase`, but that's probably going to be the only use case.
I don't think it's a big deal to have a test function take an almost_always_useless parameter - it's not an exposed API, anyways. But, if you can come up with a different way of implementing `test_spend_coinbase` that doesn't require 007c5a78335a3e9f6c9c28a077793c2ba34bbb4e, even better! I looked for it for a while, but other than duplicating the whole `populate_test_db` code, which made the test way harder to comprehend, I didn't find any other way.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
`Wallet::sync` hangs indefinitely when syncing with Electrum with `stop_gap` set as 0.
The culprit is having `chunk_size` set as `stop_gap`. A zero value results in syncing not being able to progress.
Fixes #651
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
~* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API~
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
This is a continuation of the #651 fix. We should also check whether the
same bug affects esplora as noted by @afilini. To achieve this, I've
introduced a `ConfigurableBlockchainTester` trait that can test multiple
blockchain implementations.
* Introduce `ConfigurableBlockchainTester` trait.
* Use the aforementioned trait to also test esplora.
* Change the electrum test to also use the new trait.
* Fix some complaints by clippy in ureq.rs file (why is CI not seeing
this?).
* Refactor some code.
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
This PR is to remove Database::flush. See this issue for detail https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/567
### Notes to the reviewers
The 2nd commit is a small refactoring of adding a new private ivec_to_u32 to avoid too much code duplication. Please let me know if it's ok to include this in this PR or I should make it into a separate PR
Currently existing test cases are shared across for all Databaes implementation so I am not sure if we should add specific test cases for keyvalue(Tree) for this auto-flush behaviour?(and I feel like it's more a implementation detail). Please let me know how should I proceed for test case in this PR
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
### Description
Before this commit, you could create a transaction with `drain_to` set
without specifying recipients, nor `drain_wallet`, nor `utxos`. What would
happen is that BDK would pick one input from the wallet and send
that one to `drain_to`, which is quite weird.
This PR restricts the usage of `drain_to`: if you want to use it as a
change output, you need to set recipients as well. If you want to send
a specific utxo to the `drain_to` address, you specify it through
`add_utxos`. If you want to drain the whole wallet, you set
`drain_wallet`. In any other case, if `drain_to` is set, we return a
`NoRecipients` error.
Fixes #620
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API - kinda?
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Daniela Brozzoni [Wed, 25 May 2022 17:54:40 +0000 (18:54 +0100)]
populate_test_db accepts a `coinbase` param
Allows user to ask for a test db populated with clean coins
from coinbases. This is useful for testing the wallet behaviour
when some inputs are coinbases.
### Description
By default bdk sets the transaction's nLockTime to current_height
to prevent fee sniping.
current_height can be provided by the user through TxParams; if the user
didn't provide it, we use the last sync height, or 0 if we never synced.
If you want to know more about fee sniping: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/fee-sniping/
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
I'm not sure if this is needed or helpful, but this PR adds comments to describe how the `sent` and `received` fields of `TransactionDetails` are calculated.
I wasn't sure how it was done until I looked deeper into the codebase (but maybe I am too much of a beginner and this is common sense for most).
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
Daniela Brozzoni [Wed, 30 Mar 2022 14:29:31 +0000 (16:29 +0200)]
Discourage fee sniping with nLockTime
By default bdk sets the transaction's nLockTime to current_height
to discourage fee sniping.
current_height can be provided by the user through TxParams; if the user
didn't provide it, we use the last sync height, or 0 if we never synced.
Before this commit, you could create a transaction with `drain_to` set
without specifying recipients, nor `drain_wallet`, nor `utxos`. What would
happen is that BDK would pick one input from the wallet and send
that one to `drain_to`, which is quite weird.
This PR restricts the usage of `drain_to`: if you want to use it as a
change output, you need to set recipients as well. If you want to send
a specific utxo to the `drain_to` address, you specify it through
`add_utxos`. If you want to drain the whole wallet, you set
`drain_wallet`. In any other case, if `drain_to` is set, we return a
`NoRecipients` error.
### Description
This PR fixes the CI, which is currently failing after a Github Actions update.
The MSRV is bumped to 1.56.1 (from 1.56.0), since that's `reqwest`'s current MSRV.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
Daniela Brozzoni [Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:20:28 +0000 (16:20 +0200)]
Bump MSRV from 1.56.0 to 1.56.1
In this way we can continue using reqwest v0.11, whose MSRV is now
1.56.1
The only difference between v1.56.0 and v1.56.1 is a bug fix for
CVE-2021-42574.
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
<!-- Describe the purpose of this PR, what's being adding and/or fixed -->
just a small typo fix
### Notes to the reviewers
<!-- In this section you can include notes directed to the reviewers, like explaining why some parts
of the PR were done in a specific way -->
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
Not much to say besides that I bumped some version which helps us to resolve some dependency hell :)
### Notes to the reviewers
`ahash` was previously fixed because of an incompatibility with the defined MSRV. The MSRV has been bumped to 1.56 so we can update the dependency.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [ ] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
Only use the old `importmulti` with Core versions that don't support descriptor-based (sqlite) wallets.
Add an extra feature to test against Core 0.20 called `test-rpc-legacy`.
This also makes us compatible with Core 23.0 and is thus a replacement for #613, which actually looking back at it was adding support for 23.0 but probably breaking older wallets by adding the extra argument to `createwallet`.
I believe #613 should now only focus on getting the tests to work against 23.0, which is still important but not such a high priority as being compatible with the latest version of Core.
Also fixes #598
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
projects / bdk / log