proof of concept: implement cancel_tx
#1764
Conversation
| Canceled, | ||
| /// new details added. note, when applied this will overwrite existing | ||
| Details(Details), | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really understand the design of this enum.
What is the difference between Record::Canceled and Record::Details { canceled: true}.
Why are both structs required?
| @@ -44,6 +44,95 @@ const P2WPKH_FAKE_WITNESS_SIZE: usize = 106; | |||
|
|
|||
| const DB_MAGIC: &[u8] = &[0x21, 0x24, 0x48]; | |||
|
|
|||
| #[test] | |||
| fn cancel_tx_frees_spent_inputs() -> anyhow::Result<()> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, this test behaves exactly as I would expect
|
@ValuedMammal could you further elaborate on the goals of this PR? Thanks! |
ValuedMammal
changed the title
cancel_tx + tx detailscancel_tx
|
Even after PR #1765, I think |
Description
This is not a merge candidate. The goal of this PR is implement
cancel_tx, as doing so has the potential to fix a long-standing TODO in the library saying "make this free up reserved utxos when that's implemented". This was initiated in response to user feedback claiming that the method has no effect.issue #1743
Checklists
All Submissions:
cargo fmtandcargo clippybefore committing