I found this useful for for creating test cases and checking validity.
In the event that alternative implementations do not aim for exact
serilization compatibility, this RPC can be used to validate and
re-serialize their output for testing.
Instead of not failing and silently allowing bad PSETs to be created,
provide error messages that explain why the operation the user did was
wrong. Specifically for combining PSETs such that they would become
fully blinded but have imbalanced values and blinders, and for blinding
a PSET when the wallet has a blind input but no outputs to blind (would
result in an imbalance).
* Add some fields that were missing in PSBTInput::Merge and PSBTOutput::Merge
* Remove incorrect check that explicit values and assets aren't present
when blinded
* Fix bug in combinepsbt where the condition was inverted
Surprisingly easy to do. Almost all of the diff resolution was mechanically
* replacing boost::variant with std::variant
* replacing Optional with std::optional
* then replacing `nullopt` with `std::nullopt`
* updating the RPC functions for the new RPCArg::Default type
* update the tests/ directory to make new (since 22) tests use arrays for
createrawtransaction outputs
* other ad-hoc changes to function parameters etc (not too many of these)
I had to "really" change the code in PrecomputePSBTData, which was introduced
in 22.0 and affected by PSET, but this function was like 8 lines long so it
was easy.
Reviewing the diff may be a bit difficult because of the mix of mechanical
changes and ad-hoc things. Probably the most straightforward thing to do
is to redo the merge, `sed -i` to fix the boost::variant and Optional stuff,
then diff the remaining conflicts against this commit.
TODO: grep for `blindpsbt` and you will see that this RPC is still referenced
in documentation and help text even though it was deleted. Need to fix this
in 0.21 in a separate PR.
f685a13bef doc: GetTransaction()/getrawtransaction follow-ups to #22383 (John Newbery)
abc57e1f08 refactor: move `GetTransaction(...)` to node/transaction.cpp (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
~This PR is based on #22383, which should be reviewed first~ (merged by now).
In [yesterday's PR review club session to PR 22383](https://bitcoincore.reviews/22383), the idea of moving the function `GetTransaction(...)` from src/validation.cpp to src/node/transaction.cpp came up. With this, the circular dependency "index/txindex -> validation -> index/txindex" is removed (see change in `lint-circular-dependencies.sh`). Thanks to jnewbery for suggesting and to sipa for providing historical background.
Relevant IRC log:
```
17:52 <jnewbery> Was anyone surprised that GetTransaction() is in validation.cpp? It seems to me that node/transaction.cpp would be a more appropriate place for it.
17:53 <raj_> jnewbery, +1
17:53 <stickies-v> agreed!
17:54 <glozow> jnewbery ya
17:54 <jnewbery> seems weird that validation would call into txindex. I wonder if we remove this function, then validation would no longer need to #include txindex
17:54 <sipa> GetTransaction predates node/transaction.cpp, and even the generic index framework itself :)
17:55 <sipa> (before 0.8, validation itself used the txindex)
17:55 <jnewbery> (and GetTransaction() seems like a natural sibling to BroadcastTransaction(), which is already in node/transaction.cpp)
17:55 <jnewbery> sipa: right, this is not meant as a criticism of course. Just wondering if we can organize things a bit more rationally now that we have better separation between things.
17:55 <sipa> jnewbery: sure, just providing background
17:56 <sipa> seems very reasonable to move it elsewhere now
```
The commit should be trivial to review with `--color-moved`.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
Code review ACK f685a13bef
rajarshimaitra:
tACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22528/commits/f685a13bef0418663015ea6d8f448f075510c0ec
mjdietzx:
crACK f685a13bef
LarryRuane:
Code review, test ACK f685a13bef
Tree-SHA512: 0e844a6ecb1be04c638b55bc4478c2949549a4fcae01c984eee078de74d176fb19d508fc09360a62ad130677bfa7daf703b67870800e55942838d7313246248c
This introduces Taproot wallet support. I fixed all the merge conflicts
and ensured that the tests pass, but this is still using the old sighash
(before Russell/Sanket/I redid it) so is not actually production ready.
Will be fixed when we bring Elements #1002 in.
78f4c8b98e prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction (Jameson Lopp)
Pull request description:
Fixes#22382
Motivation: prevent excessive disk reads if txindex is enabled.
Worth noting that this could be argued to be less of a bug and more of an issue of undefined behavior. If a user calls GetTransaction with the wrong block hash, what should happen?
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 78f4c8b98e
theStack:
Code review ACK 78f4c8b98e
LarryRuane:
tACK 78f4c8b98e
luke-jr:
utACK 78f4c8b98e
jnewbery:
utACK 78f4c8b98e
rajarshimaitra:
Code review ACK 78f4c8b98e
lsilva01:
Code Review ACK and Tested ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22383/commits/78f4c8b98eada337346ffb206339c3ebae4ff43b on Ubuntu 20.04
Tree-SHA512: af7db5b98cb2ae4897b28476b2fa243bf7e6f850750d9347062fe8013c5720986d1a3c808f80098e5289bd84b085de03c81a44e584dc28982f721c223651bfe0
