Seems like `doc(include = "../README.md")` doesn't include the readme file as docs for the dummy struct. This might be due to a difference in Rust edition used back then or something
46c344feb02e2ecfdc065d85cba320d06811bedf Bump version to 0.20.1-dev (Steve Myers)
78d26f6eb3dcccd791a858cfc6c8303b409e9a6e Bump version to 0.20.0 (Steve Myers)
92b9597f8b8dc3694508062b5e7c5f23acbc3a4f Rename `set_current_height` to `current_height` (Alekos Filini)
b5a120c649a17302f3825c45efd9ea0c3b2dd266 Missing newlines (Alekos Filini)
af6bde3997ac2fe4cfdbb691f2af2e802f0ab7c6 Fix: Wallet sync may decrement address index (志宇)
45db468c9be0c8bb2dc5fac52fbd52b6b41b4d53 Deprecate `AddressValidator` (志宇)
01141bed5ab1f73feade4058d9488c7a12f025a8 Update CHANGELOG and lib.rs docs version (Steve Myers)
87e864674367172022feaa6d3cf5e746caa3124c Bump version to 0.20.0-rc.1 (Steve Myers)
Pull request description:
Proposed tweet:
📢 Release 0.20.0 is out! Highlights include bug fixes for the ElectrumBlockchain and descriptor templates, discourage fee sniping in tx building, and new tx signing options. A big thanks to our past and latest new contributors. For all changes see: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/releases/tag/v0.20.0
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 46c344feb02e2ecfdc065d85cba320d06811bedf
Tree-SHA512: 7c36a85611f715d76a37d5a285bc72f1a06297fc06b85cca7e38c3350fcbc0a3e35d38ce617a82d191538776aa49362e523beef70bbe3b93b21d8d28d774b75f
92b9597f8b8dc3694508062b5e7c5f23acbc3a4f Rename `set_current_height` to `current_height` (Alekos Filini)
Pull request description:
### Description
Usually we don't have any prefix except for methods that can *add* to a list or replace the list entirely (e.g. `add_recipients` vs `set_recipients`)
I missed this during review of #611
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
utACK 92b9597f8b8dc3694508062b5e7c5f23acbc3a4f - I'm sorry I didn't notice it!
Tree-SHA512: 3391068b2761bcd04d740ef41f9e772039fca7bc0e0736afcbc582ec74b6c91eb155d9e09dd7a07462eec29e32ac86e41ba339d9a550af3f754164cab6bdbf61
af6bde3997ac2fe4cfdbb691f2af2e802f0ab7c6 Fix: Wallet sync may decrement address index (志宇)
Pull request description:
### Description
Fixes#649
It is critical to ensure `Wallet::get_address` with `AddressIndex::new` always returns a new and unused address.
This bug seems to be Electrum-specific. The fix is to check address index updates to ensure that newly suggested indexes are not smaller than indexes already in database.
### Notes to the reviewers
I have written new tests in `/testutils/blockchain_tests.rs` that tests all `Blockchain` implementations.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
~* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API~
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK af6bde3997ac2fe4cfdbb691f2af2e802f0ab7c6
Tree-SHA512: d714bebcf7c2836f8b98129b39b4939b0e36726acf0208e52d501f433be6cdb12f1abebc28bd7da0be8b780ccce6e1e42c8fdc6633dd486bf329bc6f88e1ce67
This bug seems to be Electrum-specific. The fix is to check the
proposed changes against the current state of the database. Ensure
newly suggested indexes are not smaller than indexes already in
database.
Changes:
* Check index updates before they are applied to database during
Electrum Blockchain sync (Thank you @rajarshimaitra for providing
an elegant solution).
Tests added:
* bdk_blockchain_tests!::test_sync_address_index_should_not_decrement
* bdk_blockchain_tests!::test_sync_address_index_should_increment
These tests ensure there will be no unexpected address reuse when
grabbing a new address via `Wallet::get_address` with `AddressIndex::New`.
Other changes:
* Tweak `rpc.rs` so that clippy is happy.
45db468c9be0c8bb2dc5fac52fbd52b6b41b4d53 Deprecate `AddressValidator` (志宇)
Pull request description:
### Description
`AddressValidator` should be deprecated as noted by @afilini [on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/753336465005608961/753367451319926827/994899488957272064):
> address validators are supposed to be used for a slightly different thing, which is when you ask the hardware wallet to independently generate the address for a derivation index and then you compare what you see on your computer/phone with what the hardware wallet is displaying
> in the case of change addresses i agree that it's not as important (because as you said the device can just refuse to sign) but for consistency we implemented it for both external and internal addresses
> more broadly, they can be thought of as a way to get a callback every time an address is generated, which may also be useful for other things (for example when i was working on a green-compatible client written in bdk i used that feature to ping the server every time a new address was generated, because that's required in their protocol)
> that said, i think currently pretty much nobody uses them and i am myself moving away from the concept that "everything needs to happen inside bdk": currently my mindset is targeted more towards reducing complexity by breaking down individual parts and wrapping them or making them "extensible" in some way
> that is to say: if you want to verify addresses in your hardware wallet you don't necessarily need bdk to do it for you (actually, you would still have to implement the callback manually), you can just call bdk to get a new addr and then ping the device yourself. and this would allow us to reduce complexity and delete some code
> actually, here's an idea: unless somebody here is opposed to this, i can make a pr to deprecate address validators in the next (0.20) release. if after that again nobody complains we can completely remove them and point users towards different strategies to achieve the same goal
### Checklists
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 45db468c9be0c8bb2dc5fac52fbd52b6b41b4d53
Tree-SHA512: 71071f4494537ece9153f5308cb4f576189016afa8ac87bc57bfdcda03ee94d5f7a3477d04f6dd37eeeea2fada6aaad42ad29c964df0971beeda7418ada65f6d
This test is to ensure there are no regressions when we later change
internal logic of `Wallet`. A single descriptor wallet should always get
a new address with `AddressIndex::New` even if we alternate grabbing
internal/external keychains.
e3a17f67d90f11d1d1a27a98ec97674c8cd3d2f7 add try_finalize to SignOptions (KaFai Choi)
c2e4ba8cbd77f1a41d269b621b0001d042c1ea57 add remove_partial_sigs to SignOptions (KaFai Choi)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
This PR is to add 2 keys(`try_finalize` and `remove_partial_sigs`) in `SignOptions`. See this issue for detail https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/612
### Notes to the reviewers
~I found the negative naming of these 2 new keys `do_not_finalize` and `do_not_remove_partial_sigs` are a bit confusing(like most negative named paremeter/variable). Should we actually change it back to positive naming(`do_finalize` and `do_remove_partial_sigs`)?~
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
notmandatory:
ReACK e3a17f67d90f11d1d1a27a98ec97674c8cd3d2f7
Tree-SHA512: 781b31d3ecf0bcd605206c0481fd5de3125f1c8ff18a463dbf4c821e5557847f7d70a3fe8618e100fb89f4f6899655ac0efa3593f77f915ad5bcb7e558bb2a7a
2af678aa846a82657d13bcda2ac0b4a9db4e2b80 Get block hash by its height (Vladimir Fomene)
Pull request description:
### Description
This PR create a new trait `blockchain::GetBlockHash` with a `get_block_hash` method which returns a block hash given the block height. This has been implemented for all blockchain backends.
Fixes#603
### Notes to the reviewers
I haven't updated the `CHANGELOG.md` and docs. Am I suppose to update it for this change?
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [ ] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
ACKs for top commit:
notmandatory:
ACK 2af678aa846a82657d13bcda2ac0b4a9db4e2b80
Tree-SHA512: 9c084a6665ecbf27ee8170fdb06e0dc8373d6a901ce29e5f5a1bec111d1507cb3bee6b03a653a55fd20e0fabe7a5eada3353e24a1e21f3a11f01bb9881ae99e5
Create blockchain::GetBlockHash trait
with a method to get block hash given
a block height. Then, implement this
trait for all backends (Electrum, RPC
, Esplora, CBF). Referenced in issue 603.
5d00f8238886a993ef21056e5b3e216a4aae6951 test that BDK won't add unconf inputs when fee bumping (Daniela Brozzoni)
98748906f6799041341227de33bec20e8c6ef4b0 test: fix populate_test_db conf calculation (Daniela Brozzoni)
1d9fdd01faf3a0f17c57381a7c54d136e9d69ffe Remove wrong TODO comment in build_fee_bump (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
Closes#144
### Notes to reviewers
#144 is describing a bug that doesn't seem to happen in BDK master anymore (BDK not respecting BIP125 rule 2). This PR just adds a test to check that the bug is fixed.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 5d00f8238886a993ef21056e5b3e216a4aae6951
Tree-SHA512: 95833f3566f9716762884d65f3f656346482e45525a3e92efa86710b9f574fdd9af7d235f1f425e4298d6ff380db9af60d1d2008ccde2588d971757db2d136b8
populate_test_db would previously give back a transaction with N + 1
confirmations when you asked for N.
This commit also fixes test_spend_coinbase, which would improperly
ask for a transaction with 0 confirmations instead of 1.
db9d43ed2f4146dbfdc28a72d0c9ae420f831fc3 use network to set coin type (Esraa Jbara)
Pull request description:
resolves#578
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
re-ACK db9d43ed2f4146dbfdc28a72d0c9ae420f831fc3
afilini:
re-ACK db9d43ed2f4146dbfdc28a72d0c9ae420f831fc3
Tree-SHA512: 0310a09ef21c6fc792688a9ccc19221b1cffaeceefd34f4c83f206e965abe963a78f9e4ca53db046b39e7bf1be118a101afe5c08c43f06ecf35ed9536102cd9b
The proposed solution is bad for privacy as well.
Let's call the initial change output, which is normally shrink when you
fee bump, change#1, and the extra output aforementioned change#2 (as,
in this case, it's going to be a change output as well). If you add change#2
you might not revel change#1, but you're still revealing change#2.
You're not improving your privacy, and you're wasting money in fees.
e85aa247cb85601e96f4d82b7a996f709559223f Avoid using immature coinbase inputs (Daniela Brozzoni)
0e0d5a0e957fbf602023011d9114d8bcb8effb67 populate_test_db accepts a `coinbase` param (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
With this PR we start considering how many confirmations a coinbase has. If it's not mature yet, we don't use it for building transactions.
Fixes#413
### Notes to the reviewers
This PR is based on #611, review that one before reviewing this 😄
007c5a78335a3e9f6c9c28a077793c2ba34bbb4e adds a coinbase parameter to `populate_test_db`, to specify if you want the db to be populated with immature coins. This is useful for `test_spend_coinbase`, but that's probably going to be the only use case.
I don't think it's a big deal to have a test function take an almost_always_useless parameter - it's not an exposed API, anyways. But, if you can come up with a different way of implementing `test_spend_coinbase` that doesn't require 007c5a78335a3e9f6c9c28a077793c2ba34bbb4e, even better! I looked for it for a while, but other than duplicating the whole `populate_test_db` code, which made the test way harder to comprehend, I didn't find any other way.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK e85aa24
Tree-SHA512: 30f470c33f9ffe928500a58f821f8ce445c653766459465eb005031ac523c6f143856fc9ca68a8e1f23a485c6543a9565bd889f9557c92bf5322e81291212a5f
612da165f8cfbc2b0aee0a37b2cdc44d6da017c8 `Blockchain` stop_gap testing improvements (志宇)
8a5f89e129d421a41af02ea85383d5b82f5ff665 Fix hang when `ElectrumBlockchainConfig::stop_gap == 0` (志宇)
Pull request description:
* Ensure `chunk_size` is > 0 during wallet sync.
* Slight refactoring for better readability.
* Add test: `test_electrum_blockchain_factory_sync_with_stop_gaps`
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
`Wallet::sync` hangs indefinitely when syncing with Electrum with `stop_gap` set as 0.
The culprit is having `chunk_size` set as `stop_gap`. A zero value results in syncing not being able to progress.
Fixes#651
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
~* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API~
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 612da165f8cfbc2b0aee0a37b2cdc44d6da017c8
Tree-SHA512: 56f1bff788855facc21856209922594cff9f639c5c58ecd180a0493322a75a564b72ded330ab0b6d6c90007ce859d2b8a5d2870d619bae5ddf9a3d64837f3753
This is a continuation of the #651 fix. We should also check whether the
same bug affects esplora as noted by @afilini. To achieve this, I've
introduced a `ConfigurableBlockchainTester` trait that can test multiple
blockchain implementations.
* Introduce `ConfigurableBlockchainTester` trait.
* Use the aforementioned trait to also test esplora.
* Change the electrum test to also use the new trait.
* Fix some complaints by clippy in ureq.rs file (why is CI not seeing
this?).
* Refactor some code.
5ff8320e3b1cb4e3971549a3e3c168f20762d04b add private function ivcec_to_u32 in keyvalue (KaFai Choi)
e68d3b9e63914c1008e1a4bb20a847428659d52e remove Database::flush (KaFai Choi)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
This PR is to remove Database::flush. See this issue for detail https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/567
### Notes to the reviewers
The 2nd commit is a small refactoring of adding a new private ivec_to_u32 to avoid too much code duplication. Please let me know if it's ok to include this in this PR or I should make it into a separate PR
Currently existing test cases are shared across for all Databaes implementation so I am not sure if we should add specific test cases for keyvalue(Tree) for this auto-flush behaviour?(and I feel like it's more a implementation detail). Please let me know how should I proceed for test case in this PR
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
re-ACK 5ff8320e3b1cb4e3971549a3e3c168f20762d04b
Tree-SHA512: eb37de8217efeb89d3ae346da36d0fb55aa67554d591b4759500f793bcf6aa7601c3d717fd473136c88e76aa72dbb6008ecf62b1d4ccf5ba3cbd1598f758522a
6a150368674046f796f5c37755896f16d8345fbc Restrict `drain_to` usage (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
Before this commit, you could create a transaction with `drain_to` set
without specifying recipients, nor `drain_wallet`, nor `utxos`. What would
happen is that BDK would pick one input from the wallet and send
that one to `drain_to`, which is quite weird.
This PR restricts the usage of `drain_to`: if you want to use it as a
change output, you need to set recipients as well. If you want to send
a specific utxo to the `drain_to` address, you specify it through
`add_utxos`. If you want to drain the whole wallet, you set
`drain_wallet`. In any other case, if `drain_to` is set, we return a
`NoRecipients` error.
Fixes#620
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] This pull request breaks the existing API - kinda?
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 6a150368674046f796f5c37755896f16d8345fbc
Tree-SHA512: 69076977df37fcaac92dd99d2f2c9c37098971817d5b0629fc7e3069390eb5789331199b3b7c5d0569d70473f4f37e683a5a0b30e2c6b4e2ec22a5ef1d0f2d77
Allows user to ask for a test db populated with clean coins
from coinbases. This is useful for testing the wallet behaviour
when some inputs are coinbases.
97bc9dc7170c336e97cd756b1f07ac3c23a39626 Discourage fee sniping with nLockTime (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
By default bdk sets the transaction's nLockTime to current_height
to prevent fee sniping.
current_height can be provided by the user through TxParams; if the user
didn't provide it, we use the last sync height, or 0 if we never synced.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/533
### Notes to the reviewers:
If you want to know more about fee sniping: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/fee-sniping/
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 97bc9dc7170c336e97cd756b1f07ac3c23a39626
Tree-SHA512: e92d1ae907687d9fee44d120d790f1ebdf14b698194979e1be8433310fd5636afa63808effed12fce6091f968ec6b76b727cfee6fed54068af0a7450239fdd26
77c7d0aae944dbd5a44ca9b8f239db0c9edcd4f8 Additional comments for `TransactionDetails`. (志宇)
Pull request description:
### Description
I'm not sure if this is needed or helpful, but this PR adds comments to describe how the `sent` and `received` fields of `TransactionDetails` are calculated.
I wasn't sure how it was done until I looked deeper into the codebase (but maybe I am too much of a beginner and this is common sense for most).
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
re-ACK 77c7d0aae944dbd5a44ca9b8f239db0c9edcd4f8
Tree-SHA512: 8d29d249a70bc2d0631078b6772c5543bdc61ee43df3810ab666f5e97ca59b0d4cfc8acad14bbaf8674baba319f24fa2781a42740ca42bccd9688831aaedea72
By default bdk sets the transaction's nLockTime to current_height
to discourage fee sniping.
current_height can be provided by the user through TxParams; if the user
didn't provide it, we use the last sync height, or 0 if we never synced.
Fixes#533
Before this commit, you could create a transaction with `drain_to` set
without specifying recipients, nor `drain_wallet`, nor `utxos`. What would
happen is that BDK would pick one input from the wallet and send
that one to `drain_to`, which is quite weird.
This PR restricts the usage of `drain_to`: if you want to use it as a
change output, you need to set recipients as well. If you want to send
a specific utxo to the `drain_to` address, you specify it through
`add_utxos`. If you want to drain the whole wallet, you set
`drain_wallet`. In any other case, if `drain_to` is set, we return a
`NoRecipients` error.
Fixes#620
d020dede3785f351c0a58a0787c20c396437ff87 Fix README.md link to rust 1.56.1 blog post (Steve Myers)
Pull request description:
### Description
Fix link to rust blog for 1.56.1 as pointed out by ulrichard: https://github.com/weareseba/bdk-reserves/pull/5#issuecomment-1159212838
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: a5bd76fca97dd64c12617b43230dbc36b1178e47224ce324b67cd13999e5f92d2a05d6a9e909841e6d5c6904f2fa426b6bee1001e757d53cc91fb4fd3803f56b
b289c4ec2d4e19cd231e65f6e71e2b7422a81be1 Bump MSRV from 1.56.0 to 1.56.1 (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
This PR fixes the CI, which is currently failing after a Github Actions update.
The MSRV is bumped to 1.56.1 (from 1.56.0), since that's `reqwest`'s current MSRV.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK b289c4ec2d4e19cd231e65f6e71e2b7422a81be1
Tree-SHA512: e3aa8638ffd374371037e71d1c9790dd4fb3aa29f0ade5655b47ef5184b26120ee5281cd1745612af2572beb8a6bb43f84da3d60a73b455f9652853fcf31b62d
In this way we can continue using reqwest v0.11, whose MSRV is now
1.56.1
The only difference between v1.56.0 and v1.56.1 is a bug fix for
CVE-2021-42574.
a85ef62698eae748242f31db80fa3aabd3b2b64e fix typo (Buck Perley)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
<!-- Describe the purpose of this PR, what's being adding and/or fixed -->
just a small typo fix
### Notes to the reviewers
<!-- In this section you can include notes directed to the reviewers, like explaining why some parts
of the PR were done in a specific way -->
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
rajarshimaitra:
ACK a85ef62698eae748242f31db80fa3aabd3b2b64e
afilini:
ACK a85ef62698eae748242f31db80fa3aabd3b2b64e
Tree-SHA512: 089de23adae62492a0b39a27c9cb8cb8afc99e5634194118681b8a9a46ff0b073558f9cd515cd4db4c9c6e6f9c813bfa4b193d4e3f9558b34ad29cbd46cf028c
3283a200bc5fef4bca38954abad669130125f70c Bump rusqlite (Philipp Hoenisch)
3f9b4cdca9dc05d3e8f63df7235287e192a1838a Bump ahash (Philipp Hoenisch)
Pull request description:
### Description
Not much to say besides that I bumped some version which helps us to resolve some dependency hell :)
### Notes to the reviewers
`ahash` was previously fixed because of an incompatibility with the defined MSRV. The MSRV has been bumped to 1.56 so we can update the dependency.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [ ] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
rajarshimaitra:
ACK 3283a200bc5fef4bca38954abad669130125f70c
Tree-SHA512: 4760890529bb4dd87fafdda04188fd06e707398abfa7d36d26077233525e76cc8c7d8888ad996c1cc4ac31ab708ea9a56a602b1d1578b97f9e44b610df3d969b
