-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 249
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add generate block command #254
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
73b7912
to
5a271f2
Compare
This RPC takes both |
Also dupe of #189. Not sure if that author is still active though. |
5a271f2
to
066849a
Compare
done |
066849a
to
93fcdf9
Compare
Thanks @benthecarman! concept ACK from me. I have a mild preference that the enum have a more generateblock-specific name but I can't think of a good one. Heads up that this does not compile on Rust 1.41, which is our MSRV. I've approved CI so you should see a failure soon but here is the error on my end:
|
/// The different authentication methods for the client. | ||
#[derive(Clone, Debug, Hash, Eq, PartialEq, Ord, PartialOrd)] | ||
pub enum MineableTx { | ||
RawTx(Transaction), |
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.
Actually this doesn't have to be a Transaction
but a RawTx
trait object.
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.
This doesn't really work, have to make it a Box<dyn RawTx>
but still run into errors with sizing
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.
Right, it would actually have to be a generic enum.
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.
Hmm actually maybe not...
93fcdf9
to
707d58f
Compare
Fixed the compile issue I believe |
707d58f
to
ce915de
Compare
@benthecarman compilation is fixed, but I believe now this is going to fail because |
Ah yeah there we're some unrelated to my changes so I didn't fix |
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.
ACK badf7fc
What version of core was this introduced in? It looks like it's not present in 0.19 and 0.20, which we run integration tests against. I'm not sure how we handle feature-gating new RPCs here. It's not really my crate.. |
Version 0.21 |
Do you have clock cycles for this PR @benthecarman? Otherwise I can pick it up, if I do it it will not get done till after next release. FTR I'm attempting to do a quick-ish release then start working on the harder stuff (update crate to support latest Core version). |
I am at bitcoin++ this week, if you want a fast release go ahead and take this over |
Ha! 'quick-ish release' I must have been on crack when I wrote that. |
No description provided.