e2bf9734b1 Remove redundant duplicated keys check (Alekos Filini)
Pull request description:
### Description
This check is redundant since it's already performed by miniscript (see https://docs.rs/miniscript/7.0.0/miniscript/miniscript/analyzable/enum.AnalysisError.html#variant.RepeatedPubkeys) and it was incorrectly failing on tr descriptors that contain duplicated keys across different taproot leaves
Fixes#760
### Changelog notice
### 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
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
Code review ACK e2bf9734b1 - the code looks good to me, but I didn't test manually
Tree-SHA512: 3c557d741e34abf6336c7e257867f2c6f91a4be0024317af834f08ba7c0c64557bd74b643005254c9f04e953350b104b0d4d287f0d0528134b357a4adf580f87
e65edbf53c Change parameter name of database in test funcs (Vladimir Fomene)
88307045b0 Add more test to the database module (Vladimir Fomene)
e06c3f945c Set tx field to none if `include_raw` is false (Vladimir Fomene)
Pull request description:
### Description
This PR add more test to the database module and also fixes certain bugs discovered by the written test. I also amended the name used for the database parameter in the test functions.
### Notes to the reviewers
This contributes to fixing #699
### Changelog notice
<!-- Notice the release manager should include in the release tag message changelog -->
<!-- See https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/ for examples -->
### 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
ACKs for top commit:
rajarshimaitra:
tACK e65edbf53c
danielabrozzoni:
Code review ACK e65edbf53c
Tree-SHA512: 1ac1475f7d63f25e94ef21342e6f6e243c34c8c9208d11a5492f224026055da2a96f20be83497c1ba361effff9861f4e68920f98feebaf4b201d205c7030c282
bfd7b2f65d Allow creating transactions with dust outputs (Liam)
Pull request description:
We needed this for testing our wallet with dust, does this look like a reasonable feature? If so, I'll go ahead and add a test, update the changelog, etc.
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
tACK bfd7b2f65d
Tree-SHA512: b467b365d8a68f5a868cc5cc88387677533e8fb0bf543bf4c7a5b984f8b28972281029a3be8d2c92cee7d6ee05c243d12af0841e7a7e1d652745567557f2bede
de358f8cdc Implement conversion for Lightning fee rate (Vladimir Fomene)
Pull request description:
This PR fixes#608.
### Description
Lightning denotes transaction fee rate sats / 1000 weight units and sats / 1000 vbytes.
Here we add support for creating BDK FeeRate from lightning fee rate. We also move all FeeRate tests to
types.rs and rename as_sat_vb to as_sat_per_vb.
### Notes to the reviewers
Matt was concerned that we might round down value in fee calculation in such a way that a transaction may not be relayed because it is below Bitcoin Core's min relay fee (1 sat/vbyte). I don't think we need to worry about that because we [round up(ceil)](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/src/types.rs#L91) during fee calculation, we don't round down. I will love to hear what you think. Is there something I'm missing? @johncantrell97, I will appreciate your review on this one.
### 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
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
ACK de358f8cdc
Tree-SHA512: aaa7da8284b668d15ad9c92168c149c4b3ee0f8faee9b7eb159745d23e38835189eaf5c336da14ba9272ee07cd366718eefb8365da9ddf53014e122b6393a087
Our costant for the P2WPKH satisfaction size was wrong: in
7ac87b8f99 we added 1 WU for the script
sig len - but actually, that's 4WU! This resulted in
P2WPKH_SATISFACTION_SIZE being equal to 109 instead of 112.
This also adds a comment for better readability.
9d85c9667f Fix the early InsufficientFunds error in the branch and bound (Alekos Filini)
Pull request description:
### Description
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
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
utACK 9d85c9667f
Tree-SHA512: 9a06758cba61ade73198f35b08070987d5eb065e01750ce62409f86b37cd0b0894640e9f75c8b2c26543c0da04e3f77bd397fab540e789f221661aae828db224
7fdacdbad4 doc: Document that list_transactions() might return unsorted txs, show how to sort them if needed (w0xlt)
Pull request description:
This PR documents that `list_transactions()` might return unsorted transaction and shows how to sort them if needed.
Closes#518.
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
re-ACK 7fdacdbad4
Tree-SHA512: 83bec98e1903d6dc6b8933e8994cb9d04aad059cee8a7b8e1e3a322cf52511364b36d0cd6be1c8cb1fd82c67f8be5a262bbd2c76e30b24eb4097c30f38aa8b10
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 32ae95f463,
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.
...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.
558e37afa7 Use T: AsRef<Path> as param to SqliteDatabase::new (Vladimir Fomene)
Pull request description:
This PR fixes#674
### Description
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
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
utACK 558e37afa7
Tree-SHA512: c5ff5b60e5904a5b7ef492a1e40296864b6b7506e4c6a187cfab05ef8140d14ddd322d016b4eeb18c5cfca8d4b575370b4f13c6ea7d7374ab0372a3237a5ed94
2c02a44586 Test: No address reuse for single descriptor (志宇)
Pull request description:
### Description
Just a simple new test.
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
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
tACK 2c02a44586
rajarshimaitra:
tACK 2c02a44586
Tree-SHA512: d065ae0979dc3ef7c26d6dfc19c88498e4bf17cc908e4f5677dcbf62ee59162e666cb00eb87b96d4c2557310960e3677eec7b6d907a5a4860cb7d2d74dba07b0
9d2024434e Fix: Run README.md example on the CI (meryacine)
Pull request description:
### 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
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
tACK 9d2024434e
Tree-SHA512: 5842f7cdc34d76045596a248ec80bbcf86591ec9abe32d92af8322672e7a5d08d3b4baf1a000b1556542b449271dc8c438e6269eaf0204bee815c67fcf1218a8
populate_test_db would previously give back a transaction with N + 1
confirmations when you asked for N.
This commit also fixes test_spend_coinbase, which would improperly
ask for a transaction with 0 confirmations instead of 1.
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.
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.
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.
Fixes#533
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
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.
A `is_spent` field is added to LocalUtxo; when a txo is spent we set
this field to true instead of deleting the entire utxo from the
database.
This allows us to create txs double-spending txs already in blockchain.
Listunspent won't return spent utxos, effectively excluding them from the
coin selection and balance calculation
We used to consider a tx input as ours if we had the
tx that creates it in the database.
This commit actually checks if an input is ours before adding
its value to the `sent` field.
Daniela Brozzoni