84d295e513 tests: Check that segwit inputs in psbt have both UTXO types (Andrew Chow)
4600479058 psbt: always put a non_witness_utxo and don't remove it (Andrew Chow)
5279d8bc07 psbt: Allow both non_witness_utxo and witness_utxo (Andrew Chow)
72f6bec1da rpc: show both UTXOs in decodepsbt (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Due to recent changes to hardware wallets, the full previous transaction will need to be provided for segwit inputs. Since some software may be checking for the existence of a `witness_utxo` to determine whether to produce a segwit signature, we keep that field to ease the transition.
Because all of the sanity checks implemented by the `IsSane` functions were related to having mixed segwit and non-segwit data in a PSBT, those functions are removed as those checks are no longer proper.
Some tests are updated/removed to accommodate this and a simple test added to check that both UTXOs are being added to segwit inputs.
As discussed in the wallet IRC meeting, our own signer will not require `non_witness_utxo` for segwit inputs.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
utACK 84d295e513 (didn't retest compared to 836d6fc, but fortunately HWI's CI tracks our master branch, with a bunch of hardware wallet simulators)
ryanofsky:
Code review re-ACK 84d295e513. No changes since last review, but now I understand the context better. I think it would good to improve the comments as suggested https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19215#discussion_r447889473 and maybe refer to
meshcollider:
utACK 84d295e513
Tree-SHA512: ccc1fd3c16ac3859f5aca4fa489bd40f68be0b81bbdc4dd51188bbf28827a8642dc8b605a37318e5f16cf40f1c4910052dace2f27eca21bb58435f02a443e940
a24806c25d