Skip to content

Add get_merkle_block API call #28

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 15, 2022

Conversation

tnull
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull commented Nov 4, 2022

We already have the get_merkle_proof call, but this one returns a bitcoin::MerkleBlock, which has additional data and is more often than not more useful than Electrum's counterpart.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Nov 4, 2022

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3525791864

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

Details

  • 54 of 62 (87.1%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.4%) to 80.461%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/async.rs 11 12 91.67%
src/blocking.rs 7 14 50.0%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 3368618623: 0.4%
Covered Lines: 803
Relevant Lines: 998

💛 - Coveralls

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor Author

tnull commented Nov 4, 2022

Huh, I think the clippy error is unrelated to my change and the warning seems to only be added by the just-released 1.65.0 (see https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#result_large_err). Not sure how to go about it? Should I fix it here, or do we want to do that in another PR?

@notmandatory
Copy link
Member

Huh, I think the clippy error is unrelated to my change and the warning seems to only be added by the just-released 1.65.0 (see https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#result_large_err). Not sure how to go about it? Should I fix it here, or do we want to do that in another PR?

I think this is OK to fix in a different PR, for now you can allow the warning where needed with:

#[allow(clippy::result_large_err)]

We already have the `get_merkle_proof` call, but this one returns a
`bitcoin::MerkleBlock`, which has additional data and is more often than
not more useful than Electrum's counterpart.
@tnull tnull force-pushed the 2022-10-get-merkle-block branch from 1a73574 to e40583a Compare November 22, 2022 17:43
@tnull
Copy link
Contributor Author

tnull commented Nov 22, 2022

I think this is OK to fix in a different PR, for now you can allow the warning where needed with:

Alright, I now set the attribute crate-wide and squashed again.

Copy link
Member

@notmandatory notmandatory left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK e40583a

Copy link
Contributor

@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tested ACK

@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene merged commit 3030d2b into bitcoindevkit:master Dec 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants