Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: use new Weight type throughout the BDK codebase, instead of usize for weight units #1466

Closed
oleonardolima opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1468
Assignees
Labels
new feature New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@oleonardolima
Copy link
Contributor

oleonardolima commented Jun 6, 2024

Describe the enhancement

In the new release of rust-bitcoin 0.32.0 the new Weight type has been introduced through bitcoin-units 0.1.1, it's not being explicitly used in the PR #1448, but it should be instead of using .to_wu() as usize conversions.

Use case

Use the proper Weight type/API, instead of the current usize, for referring to weight units.

Additional context

@oleonardolima oleonardolima added the new feature New feature or request label Jun 6, 2024
@notmandatory notmandatory added this to BDK Jun 7, 2024
@notmandatory notmandatory moved this to Needs Review in BDK Jun 7, 2024
@notmandatory notmandatory added this to the 1.0.0-alpha milestone Jun 7, 2024
notmandatory added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 13, 2024
…ipt` to `0.12.0` and others

1120081 chore(wallet): rm dup code (志宇)
2a45640 deps(bdk): bump `bitcoin` to `0.32.0`, miniscript to `12.0.0` (Leonardo Lima)

Pull request description:

  fixes #1422
  <!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->

  ### Description

  This PR focuses on upgrading the `rust-bitcoin` and `miniscript` versions, to `0.32.0` and `0.12.0`, respectively. It also bumps the versions of other BDK ecosystem crates that also rely on both `rust-bitcoin` and `miniscript`, being:

  - electrum-client bitcoindevkit/rust-electrum-client#133
  - esplora-client bitcoindevkit/rust-esplora-client#85
  - hwi bitcoindevkit/rust-hwi#99

  <ins>I structured the PR in multiple commits, with closed scope, being one for each BDK crate being upgraded, and one for each kind of fix and upgrade required, it seems like a lot of commits (**that should be squashed before merging**), but I think it'll make it easier during review phase.</ins>

  In summary I can already mention some of the main changes:
  - using `compute_txid()` instead of deprecated `txid()`
  - using `minimal_non_dust()` instead of `dust_value()`
  - using the renamed `signature` and `sighash_type` fields
  - using proper `sighash::P2wpkhError`,  `sighash::TaprootError` instead of older `sighash::Error`
  - conversion from `Network` to new expected `NetworkKind` #1465
  - conversion from the new `Weight` type to current expected `usize` #1466
  - using `.into()` to convert from AbsLockTime and `RelLockTime` to `absolute::LockTime` and `relative::LockTime`
  - using Message::from_digest() instead of relying on deprecated `ThirtyTwoByteHash` trait.
  - updating the miniscript policy and dsl to proper expect and handle new `Threshold` type, instead of the previous two parameters.

  <!-- Describe the purpose of this PR, what's being adding and/or fixed -->

  ### Notes to the reviewers
  <ins>Again, I structured the PR in multiple commits, with closed scope, being one for each BDK crate being upgraded, and one for each kind of fix and upgrade required, it seems like a lot of commits (**that should be squashed before merging**), but I think it'll make it easier during review phase.</ins>

  It should definitely be carefully reviewed, especially the last commits for the wallet crate scope, the ones with the semantic `fix(wallet)`.

  I would also appreciate if @tcharding reviewed it, as he gave a try in the past (#1400 ), and I relied on some of it for the  policy part of it, other rust-bitcoin maintainers reviews are a definitely welcome 😁

  <!-- 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 -->

  ### Changelog notice
  > // TODO(@oleonardolima): Do another pass and double check the changes
  - Use `compute_txid()` instead of deprecated `txid()`
  - Use `minimal_non_dust()` instead of `dust_value()`
  - Use `signature` and `sighash_type` fields, instead of previous `sig` and `hash_type`
  - Use `sighash::P2wpkhError`,  and `sighash::TaprootError` instead of older `sighash::Error`
  - Converts from `Network` to `NetworkKind`, where expected
  - Converts from `Weight` type to current used `usize`
  - Use `.into()` to convert from `AbsLockTime` and `RelLockTime` to `absolute::LockTime` and `relative::LockTime`
  - Remove use of  deprecated `ThirtyTwoByteHash` trait, use `Message::from_digest()`
  - Update the miniscript policy and dsl macros to proper expect and handle new `Threshold` type, instead of the previous two parameters.

  <!-- 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

  #### New Features:

  * [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
  * [ ] I've added docs for the new feature

  #### 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:
  notmandatory:
    ACK 1120081

Tree-SHA512: ba1ab64603b41014d3f0866d846167f77d31959ca6f1d9c3181d5e543964f5d772e05651d63935ba7bbffeba41a66868d27de4c32129739b9ca50f3bbaf9f2a1
@notmandatory notmandatory moved this from Needs Review to In Progress in BDK Jun 13, 2024
@notmandatory notmandatory moved this from In Progress to Needs Review in BDK Jun 26, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Needs Review to Done in BDK Jun 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new feature New feature or request
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants