bb84b7145b add tests for no recipient and using send_max while inputs are specified (ishaanam)
49090ec402 Add sendall RPC née sweep (Murch)
902793c777 Extract FinishTransaction from send() (Murch)
6d2208a3f6 Extract interpretation of fee estimation arguments (Murch)
a31d75e5fb Elaborate error messages for outdated options (Murch)
35ed094e4b Extract prevention of outdated option names (Murch)
Pull request description:
Add sendall RPC née sweep
_Motivation_
Currently, the wallet uses a fSubtractFeeAmount (SFFO) flag on the
recipients objects for all forms of sending calls. According to the
commit discussion, this flag was chiefly introduced to permit sweeping
without manually calculating the fees of transactions. However, the flag
leads to unintuitive behavior and makes it more complicated to test
many wallet RPCs exhaustively. We proposed to introduce a dedicated
`sendall` RPC with the intention to cover this functionality.
Since the proposal, it was discovered in further discussion that our
proposed `sendall` rpc and SFFO have subtly different scopes of
operation.
• sendall:
Use _given UTXOs_ to pay a destination the remainder after fees.
• SFFO:
Use a _given budget_ to pay an address the remainder after fees.
While `sendall` will simplify cases of spending a given set of
UTXOs such as paying the value from one or more specific UTXOs, emptying
a wallet, or burning dust, we realized that there are some cases in
which SFFO is used to pay other parties from a limited budget,
which can often lead to the creation of change outputs. This cannot be
easily replicated using `sendall` as it would require manual
computation of the appropriate change amount.
As such, sendall cannot replace all uses of SFFO, but it still has a
different use case and will aid in simplifying some wallet calls and
numerous wallet tests.
_Sendall call details_
The proposed sendall call builds a transaction from a specific
subset of the wallet's UTXO pool (by default all of them) and assigns
the funds to one or more receivers. Receivers can either be specified
with a given amount or receive an equal share of the remaining
unassigned funds. At least one recipient must be provided without
assigned amount to collect the remainder. The `sendall` call will
never create change. The call has a `send_max` option that changes the
default behavior of spending all UTXOs ("no UTXO left behind"), to
maximizing the output amount of the transaction by skipping uneconomic
UTXOs. The `send_max` option is incompatible with providing a specific
set of inputs.
---
Edit: Replaced OP with latest commit message to reflect my updated motivation of the proposal.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK bb84b7145b
Tree-SHA512: 20aaf75d268cb4b144f5d6437d33ec7b5f989256b3daeeb768ae1e7f39dc6b962af8223c5cb42ecc72dc38cecd921c53c077bc0ec300b994e902412213dd2cc3
_Motivation_
Currently, the wallet uses a fSubtractFeeAmount (SFFO) flag on the
recipients objects for all forms of sending calls. According to the
commit discussion, this flag was chiefly introduced to permit sweeping
without manually calculating the fees of transactions. However, the flag
leads to unintuitive behavior and makes it more complicated to test
many wallet RPCs exhaustively. We proposed to introduce a dedicated
`sendall` RPC with the intention to cover this functionality.
Since the proposal, it was discovered in further discussion that our
proposed `sendall` rpc and SFFO have subtly different scopes of
operation.
• sendall:
Use _specific UTXOs_ to pay a destination the remainder after fees.
• SFFO:
Use a _specific budget_ to pay an address the remainder after fees.
While `sendall` will simplify cases of spending from specific UTXOs,
emptying a wallet, or burning dust, we realized that there are some
cases in which SFFO is used to pay other parties from a limited budget,
which can often lead to the creation of change outputs. This cannot be
easily replicated using `sendall` as it would require manual computation
of the appropriate change amount.
As such, sendall cannot replace all uses of SFFO, but it still has a
different use case and will aid in simplifying some wallet calls and
numerous wallet tests.
_Sendall call details_
The proposed sendall call builds a transaction from a specific subset of
the wallet's UTXO pool (by default all of them) and assigns the funds to
one or more receivers. Receivers can either be specified with a specific
amount or receive an equal share of the remaining unassigned funds. At
least one recipient must be provided without assigned amount to collect
the remainder. The `sendall` call will never create change. The call has
a `send_max` option that changes the default behavior of spending all
UTXOs ("no UTXO left behind"), to maximizing the output amount of the
transaction by skipping uneconomic UTXOs. The `send_max` option is
incompatible with providing a specific set of inputs.
39b1763730 Replace use of `ArgsManager` with `DatabaseOptions` (Kiminuo)
Pull request description:
Contributes to #21005.
The goal of this PR is to remove `gArgs` from database classes (i.e. `bdb.h` and `sqlite.h`) so that they can be tested without relying on `gArgs` in tests.
Notes:
* My goal is to enable unit-testing without relying on `gArgs` as much as possible. Global variables are hard to reason about which in turn makes it slightly harder to contribute to this codebase. When the compiler does the heavy lifting for us and allows us only to construct an object (or call a method) with valid parameters, we may also save some time in code reviews. The cost for this is passing an argument which is not for free but the cost is very miniscule compared to benefits, I think.
* GUI code is an exception because it seems fine to have `gArgs` there so I don't plan to make changes in `src/qt` folder, for example.
* My approach to removal of `gArgs` uses is moving from lower levels to upper ones and pass `ArgsManager` as an argument as needed. The approach is very similar to what #20158.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 39b1763730
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 39b1763730. Just the two small ReadDatabaseArgs and Berkeley open changes that were discussed since the last review
Tree-SHA512: aa066b314db593e46c18698fe8cdd500f558b405dc04e4a9a3ff57b52b5b3a81a6cb090e0e661785d1d02c1bf18958c1f4cd715ff233aab63381e3f80960622d
62fa61fa4a refactor: remove the wallet folder if the restore fails (w0xlt)
abbb7eccef refactor: Move restorewallet() RPC logic to the wallet section (w0xlt)
4807f73f48 refactor: Implement restorewallet() logic in the wallet section (w0xlt)
Pull request description:
Currently `restorewallet()` logic is written in the RPC layer and it can´t be reused by GUI. So it moves this to the wallet section and then, GUI can access it.
This is necessary to implement the "Restore Wallet" menu item in the GUI (which is already implemented in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/471 ).
This commit also simplifies error handling and adds a new behavior: if the restore fails, the invalid wallet folder is removed.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 62fa61fa4a
shaavan:
crACK 62fa61fa4a
Tree-SHA512: 7ccfbad5943f38616ba0c2dd443c97a4b5bc1f6612dbf5a9e7a0263100aba36671fae929a2e7688442667be394645f44484af137a4802f204a33c4689eb27c39
