This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 25, 2025. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 293
Add the descriptor argument to createwallet #278
Open
sander2
wants to merge
4
commits into
rust-bitcoin:master
Choose a base branch
from
sander2:feat/create-wallet-descriptor-arg
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. On L1154 is needed to add a check whether it is a descriptor wallet, as only legacy wallets have HD seeds. For example: There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It makes sense to add an assertion in test_create_wallet(): (It will be also required to add |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a bit confused about the goal of this line. You are setting
default_descriptorsto whatever its default value would be ... so why provide it at all?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was easier to determine the default value than to use a variable number of arguments. Also there are more
createwalletarguments in the newest version that are not added yet (load_on_startupandexternal_signer), and if they're added in the future, some value will need to be passed here anyway, right?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW in theory, no, it's possible to use named arguments rather than positional ones, so that we don't have to stick values in just to get to further values. But that's a bigger change and unrelated to this PR :).
Okay, but simply dropping
default_descriptorswon't cause you to need a variable number of arguments. Right now you always pass it. I'm suggesting you never pass it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@apoelstra if I don't include
default_descriptorsin the list of default arguments, the defaults would be applied incorrectly, right? At least if I understand the documentation ofhandle_defaultscorrectly:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Handle defaults never touches the last argument anyway, so this will only become relevant if we add another argument here.
Also, on named arguments, my total refactor for async support migrates to using named arguments so we don't need the ugly
handle_defaultsstuff anymore.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To answer Andrew's concern:
He's only setting the default value that is filled if the actual value is not set.