Fix typos in comments

src/wallet/coin_selection.rs

@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ impl<D: Database> CoinSelectionAlgorithm<D> for BranchAndBoundCoinSelection {
 
 impl BranchAndBoundCoinSelection {
     // TODO: make this more Rust-onic :)
-    // (And perhpaps refactor with less arguments?)
+    // (And perhaps refactor with less arguments?)
     #[allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)]
     fn bnb(
         &self,

src/wallet/mod.rs

@@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ where
     /// Bump the fee of a transaction previously created with this wallet.
     ///
     /// Returns an error if the transaction is already confirmed or doesn't explicitly signal
-    /// *repalce by fee* (RBF). If the transaction can be fee bumped then it returns a [`TxBuilder`]
+    /// *replace by fee* (RBF). If the transaction can be fee bumped then it returns a [`TxBuilder`]
     /// pre-populated with the inputs and outputs of the original transaction.
     ///
     /// ## Example
@@ -1059,7 +1059,7 @@ where
         &self.secp
     }
 
-    /// Returns the descriptor used to create adddresses for a particular `keychain`.
+    /// Returns the descriptor used to create addresses for a particular `keychain`.
     pub fn get_descriptor_for_keychain(&self, keychain: KeychainKind) -> &ExtendedDescriptor {
         let (descriptor, _) = self._get_descriptor_for_keychain(keychain);
         descriptor

src/wallet/signer.rs

@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ pub enum SignerError {
     InvalidNonWitnessUtxo,
     /// The `witness_utxo` field of the transaction is required to sign this input
     MissingWitnessUtxo,
-    /// The `witness_script` field of the transaction is requied to sign this input
+    /// The `witness_script` field of the transaction is required to sign this input
     MissingWitnessScript,
     /// The fingerprint and derivation path are missing from the psbt input
     MissingHdKeypath,
@@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ impl Signer for PrivateKey {
         }
 
         // FIXME: use the presence of `witness_utxo` as an indication that we should make a bip143
-        // sig. Does this make sense? Should we add an extra argument to explicitly swith between
+        // sig. Does this make sense? Should we add an extra argument to explicitly switch between
         // these? The original idea was to declare sign() as sign<Ctx: ScriptContex>() and use Ctx,
         // but that violates the rules for trait-objects, so we can't do it.
         let (hash, sighash) = match psbt.inputs[input_index].witness_utxo {

src/wallet/tx_builder.rs

@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ impl<'a, B, D: BatchDatabase, Cs: CoinSelectionAlgorithm<D>, Ctx: TxBuilderConte
     /// 2. `psbt_input`: To know the value.
     /// 3. `satisfaction_weight`: To know how much weight/vbytes the input will add to the transaction for fee calculation.
     ///
-    /// There are several security concerns about adding foregin UTXOs that application
+    /// There are several security concerns about adding foreign UTXOs that application
     /// developers should consider. First, how do you know the value of the input is correct? If a
     /// `non_witness_utxo` is provided in the `psbt_input` then this method implicitly verifies the
     /// value by checking it against the transaction. If only a `witness_utxo` is provided then this