Add verify_with_flags to Script and Transaction #598
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
jrawsthorne
previously approved these changes
Apr 30, 2021
sgeisler
previously approved these changes
Apr 30, 2021
|
Also, this looks non-API-breaking, will tag it that way unless someone disagrees and I overlooked something. |
dr-orlovsky
reviewed
May 1, 2021
| /// * index - the input index in spending which is spending this transaction | ||
| /// * amount - the amount this script guards | ||
| /// * spending - the transaction that attempts to spend the output holding this script | ||
| /// Shorthand for [Self::verify_with_flags] with flag [bitcoinconsensus::VERIFY_ALL] | ||
| pub fn verify (&self, index: usize, amount: u64, spending: &[u8]) -> Result<(), Error> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be Amount? (especially once we adopt wider Amount use like in #599)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer to keep this non API breaking and not change yet the verify method signature, but I changed the amount type in verify_with_flags in 69117a1
src/blockdata/script.rs
Outdated
| /// * `amount` - the amount this script guards | ||
| /// * `spending` - the transaction that attempts to spend the output holding this script | ||
| /// * `flags` - verification flags, see [bitcoinconsensus::VERIFY_ALL] and similar | ||
| pub fn verify_with_flags<F: Into<u32>>(&self, index: usize, amount: u64, spending: &[u8], flags: F) -> Result<(), Error> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ibid
Suggested change
| pub fn verify_with_flags<F: Into<u32>>(&self, index: usize, amount: u64, spending: &[u8], flags: F) -> Result<(), Error> { | |
| pub fn verify_with_flags<F: Into<u32>>(&self, index: usize, amount: Amount, spending: &[u8], flags: F) -> Result<(), Error> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed in 69117a1
src/blockdata/transaction.rs
Outdated
| pub fn verify<S>(&self, mut spent: S) -> Result<(), script::Error> | ||
| where S: FnMut(&OutPoint) -> Option<TxOut> { | ||
| pub fn verify_with_flags<S, F>(&self, mut spent: S, flags: F) -> Result<(), script::Error> | ||
| where S: FnMut(&OutPoint) -> Option<TxOut>, F : Into<u32> + Copy { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure why we need to require flags to be Copy here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason was that flags is used in a for, but yeah I solved by creating the u32 before in d1f4c0a
RCasatta
dismissed stale reviews from sgeisler, sanket1729, and jrawsthorne
via
69117a1
sgeisler
approved these changes
May 1, 2021
dr-orlovsky
approved these changes
May 1, 2021
apoelstra
approved these changes
May 5, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
In https://github.com/RCasatta/blocks_iterator/blob/verify/examples/verify.rs I would like to verify mainnet and testnet blocks. However, at the moment the verify flag is not exposed in the API so it's not possible (without using bitcoinconsensus directly).
I preserved the original method and added
verify_with_flagsso that it should not be a breaking change.The flag parameter is taken as
Into<u32>so that if we introduce a VerifyFlags type/builder in bitcoinconsensus the migration should be more smooth.