REF: move segwit bech32 transaction class to TS #6236
Conversation
| @@ -38,11 +42,11 @@ export class HDSegwitBech32Transaction { | |||
| * @returns {Promise<void>} | |||
| * @private | |||
| */ | |||
| async _fetchTxhexAndDecode() { | |||
| async _fetchTxhexAndDecode(): Promise<bitcoin.Transaction> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think it should be Promise<void>
| const hexes = await BlueElectrum.multiGetTransactionByTxid([this._txid], 10, false); | ||
| this._txhex = hexes[this._txid]; | ||
| if (!this._txhex) throw new Error("Transaction can't be found in mempool"); | ||
| this._txDecoded = bitcoin.Transaction.fromHex(this._txhex); | ||
| return bitcoin.Transaction.fromHex(this._txhex); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, it was designed to not return a transaction, but place decoded tx in this._txDecoded.
with this change I suppose some tests will fail
| async getMaxUsedSequence() { | ||
| if (!this._txDecoded) await this._fetchTxhexAndDecode(); | ||
| async getMaxUsedSequence(): Promise<number> { | ||
| if (!this._txDecoded) this._txDecoded = await this._fetchTxhexAndDecode(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because of that change in _fetchTxhexAndDecode() you now have to rewrite all that checks in different methods, bloating the diff for no good reason
| async _fetchRemoteTx() { | ||
| const result = await BlueElectrum.multiGetTransactionByTxid([this._txid || this._txDecoded.getId()]); | ||
| this._remoteTx = Object.values(result)[0]; | ||
| async _fetchRemoteTx(): Promise<ElectrumTransaction> { |
| @@ -91,7 +95,7 @@ export class HDSegwitBech32Transaction { | |||
| */ | |||
| async getRemoteConfirmationsNum() { | |||
| if (!this._remoteTx) await this._fetchRemoteTx(); | |||
| return this._remoteTx.confirmations || 0; // stupid undefined | |||
| return this._remoteTx?.confirmations || 0; // stupid undefined | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe change to ?? operator?
| if (!this._wallet) throw new Error('Wallet required for this method'); | ||
| if (!this._remoteTx) await this._fetchRemoteTx(); | ||
|
|
||
| const { feeRate, targets, changeAmount, utxos } = await this.getInfo(); | ||
|
|
||
| const newTargets: { value?: number; address: string }[] = targets; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe if getInfo() was properly typed this newTargets wouldnt even be needed
| // not checking emptiness on purpose: it could unpredictably generate too far address because of unconfirmed tx. | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return this._wallet.createTransaction(utxos, targets, newFeerate, myAddress, (await this.getMaxUsedSequence()) + 1); | ||
| return this._wallet.createTransaction(utxos, targets, newFeerate, myAddress, (await this.getMaxUsedSequence()) + 1, false, 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you introduced new newTargets and worked with it, but pass to createTransaction old targets
| if (!this._remoteTx) this._remoteTx = await this._fetchRemoteTx(); | ||
| if (!this._txDecoded) this._txDecoded = await this._fetchTxhexAndDecode(); |
|
|
||
| return { tx, inputs, outputs, fee }; | ||
| if (add > 128) return { tx, fee }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
whats this 128? is it a leftover from debug?
| const combinedFeeRate = (oldFee + fee) / (this._txDecoded.virtualSize() + tx.virtualSize()); // avg | ||
| if (Math.round(combinedFeeRate) < newFeerate) { | ||
| add *= 2; | ||
| if (!add) add = 2; | ||
| } else { | ||
| // reached target feerate | ||
| break; | ||
| return { tx, fee }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'd prefer break so there is only a single return statement in the function
No description provided.