-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 412
Refactor/use iterators to preselect utxos #1798
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
Refactor/use iterators to preselect utxos #1798
Conversation
|
Hey @nymius, does this actually fix something or is this purely a refactor? Note that we want to redo the tx building / creating logic to use |
Hi @evanlinjin. Yes, maybe I went to far with the changes, still, it fixes the duplicate issue I open in #1794 by using a Then, about the refactor: The research of the code push me to isolate the pre selection steps as items on a checklist and that's why It ended up as a refactor. My idea is to further isolate each filter in their own iterator adaptor (a separated function for each one) that consumes The heavy use of iterators came for trying to avoid the allocation of helpers, like I envisioned something like this: let optional_utxos = self
.list_unspent()
.check_are_not_already_manually_selected()
.check_are_not_unspendable()
.check_confirmed_only_if_RBF()
.check_is_local_utxo()
.check_is_mature_if_coinbase();
// then
let (required, optional) = optional_utxos.chain(required_utxos.iter().clone())
.get_weighted_utxos()
.chain(foreign_utxos.iter().clone())
.apply_custom_validation_for_all_tx_inputs()
.split_utxos_in_required_and_optional()Discussing this today with @ValuedMammal, I decided to do the following changes:
If we don't agree on the above, I propose the following alternatives:
|
05ac09c to
e42b5aa
Compare
05d94f3 to
388b7cc
Compare
|
Rebased |
|
📌 I don't think we've considered what would happen if a third party provides us with a "foreign" utxo that actually duplicates a utxo owned by the wallet, potentially causing us to sign something we didn't agree to. It might need more research so I'll open an issue. bitcoindevkit/bdk_wallet#29 |
388b7cc to
e8e21e1
Compare
I created a separated draft PR #1823 to address the issue. |
|
review club notes 02/06/2025
Thanks to @ValuedMammal, @oleonardolima, @LagginTimes and @evanlinjin for participating! |
|
Next steps based on review club:
|
e8e21e1 to
905c8dd
Compare
|
Now that foreign UTxOs are separated from manually selected UTxOs there are new cases for duplicity:
TODO:
|
7cb0243 to
49867ad
Compare
| pub(crate) external_policy_path: Option<BTreeMap<String, Vec<usize>>>, | ||
| pub(crate) utxos: Vec<WeightedUtxo>, | ||
| pub(crate) utxos: HashSet<LocalOutput>, | ||
| pub(crate) foreign_utxos: HashSet<WeightedUtxo>, |
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.
I'm worried that this won't be sufficient to check that the outpoint is unique. For instance, one could change the satisfaction weight and get a different WeightedUtxo while using the same outpoint.
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.
Good point, will think more about this. Will reproduce your case in a test and use a HashMap with outpoint as key in the meantime.
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.
I modified the test slightly to cover that case. I didn't add a different one because it is not modifying the logic being tested, but just being more precise with the assertions.
I used HashMap instead of BTreeMap because we don't need the ordering features, however it can be argued that BTreeMap is already use it in crates/wallet/src/wallet/tx_builder.rs and we are adding a new import.
I prefered the former over the later.
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.
To avoid the duplication concern we had for #1582, we can implement Hash manually for WeightedUTxO and make it use the Hash implementation of Outpoint.
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.
I realized this won't be enough, as HashSet requires the following for keys k1, k2:
But this should enforced by us. If we implement Hash as I said above and don't also modify PartialEq implementation to be compatible with this, the case where outpoint is the same but weight is different will introduce two different utxos in foreign utxos set.
I wouldn't modify PartialEq because is probably going to break other logic depending of the usual way of comparing two elements (i.e. considering all its fields).
HashMap is still the best solution so far.
49867ad to
1b90b92
Compare
…nal UTxOs 03b7eca fix(wallet): off-by-one error checking coinbase maturity in optional UTxOs (nymius) Pull request description: ### Description As I was developing the changes in #1798 I discover issue #1810. So I introduced the fixes in that PR but later I split them in two to ease the review by suggestion of @oleonardolima . The `preselect_utxos` method has an off-by-one error that is making the selection of optional UTxOs too restrictive, by requiring the coinbase outputs to surpass or equal coinbase maturity time at the current height of the selection, and not in the block in which the transaction may be included in the blockchain. The changes in this commit fix it by considering the maturity of the coinbase output at the spending height and not the transaction creation height, this means, a +1 at the considered height at the moment of building the transaction. Fixes #1810. ### Notes to the reviewers Tests for issue #1810 have not been explicitly added, as there already was a `text_spend_coinbase` test which was corrected to ensure coinbase maturation is considered in alignment with the new logic. Changes are not breaking but I'm modifying slightly the documentation for the public method `TxBuilder::current_height` to adjust to the fixed code. Does this merit an entry in the CHANGELOG? ### Changelog notice `Wallet` now considers a utxo originated from a coinbase transaction (`coinbase utxo`) as available for selection if it will mature in the next block after the height provided to the selection, the current height by default. The previous behavior allowed selecting a `coinbase utxo` only when the height at the moment of selection was equal to maturity height or greater. ### 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 existing tests to match the fix * [x] I've updated docs to match the fix logic * [x] This pull request DOES NOT break the existing API * [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR ACKs for top commit: LagginTimes: ACK 03b7eca evanlinjin: ACK 03b7eca Tree-SHA512: f270b73963bd6f141c8a3e759bc9b9bf75de7c52f37fff93f0a6b8b996b449d98c58e5eeb2b56f0ee236222f0807da5c8201ade7462813743e0c4d255313e2b5
1b90b92 to
ebecafc
Compare
8de57db to
d08c270
Compare
|
Thanks @ValuedMammal! Updated and rebased |
d08c270 to
375dff4
Compare
|
Addressed comments and rebased onto master. |
375dff4 to
6ae12d4
Compare
6ae12d4 to
a1611dc
Compare
evanlinjin
left a comment
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.
Documentation suggestions. Otherwise, LGTM
| /// | ||
| /// These have priority over the "unspendable" utxos, meaning that if a utxo is present both in | ||
| /// the "utxos" and the "unspendable" list, it will be spent. | ||
| pub fn add_utxos(&mut self, outpoints: &[OutPoint]) -> Result<&mut Self, AddUtxoError> { |
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.
Ideally, we would error here if an OutPoint conflicts with a foreign UTXO. However, we will need to add new error variants (which is a MAJOR change since the error type does not have non-exhaustive).
For now, how about we make a note in the docs that if you add the same UTXO as both foreign and local, the latest change has precedence (please word that better).
Same goes for the add-foreign-utxo methods.
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.
For the add-foreign-utxo methods, ideally we will error out if it conflicts with pre-existing in TxParams::utxos or utxos in TxBuilder::wallet. However, the error variant is not non-exhaustive so that will be breaking.
For now, how about we just note that it would be unexpected behavior in the docs?
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.
@nymius had a better idea of making local UTXOs have precedence over foreign UTXOs. Let's do this and also update the documentation.
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.
I've added the documentation requested and two tests to address the discussed cases. #1823 will fix the issue against tracked local UTxOs (the one the wallet already has knowledge about, aka optional).
f5828c0 to
0d20209
Compare
|
Rebased onto b26ff89 |
There were multiple calls for de-duplication of selected UTxOs. As the test `test_filter_duplicates` shows, there are four possible cases for duplication of UTxOs while feeding the coin selection algorithms. 1. no duplication: out of concern 2. duplication in the required utxos only: covered by the source of `required_utxos`, `Wallet::list_unspent`, which roots back the provided `UTxOs` to a `HashMap` which should avoid any duplication by definition 3. duplication in the optional utxos only: is the only one possible as optional `UTxOs` are stored in a `Vec` and no checks are performed about the duplicity of their members. 4. duplication across the required and optional utxos: is already covered by `Wallet::preselect_utxos`, which avoid the processing of required UTxOs while listing the unspent available UTxOs in the wallet. This refactor changes: - `TxParams::utxos` type to be `HashSet<LocalOutput>` avoiding the duplication case 3, and allowing a query closer to O(1) on avg. to cover duplication case 4 (before was O(n) where n is the size of required utxos). - Moves the computation of the `WeightedUtxos` to the last part of UTxO filtering, allowing the unification of the computation for local outputs. - Removes some extra allocations done for helpers structures or intermediate results while filtering UTxOs. - Allows for future integration of UTxO filtering methods for other utilities. - Adds more comments for each filtering step. With these changes all four cases would be covered, and `coin_selection::filter_duplicates` would be no longer needed.
…nal utxos This test replaces the one used to test `coin_selection::filter_duplicates` introduced in 5299db3. As the code changed and there is not a single point to verificate the following properties: - there are no duplicates in required utxos - there are no duplicates in optional utxos - there are no duplicates across optional and required utxos anymore, test have been prefixed with `not_duplicated_utxos*` to allow its joint execution by using the following command: cargo test -- not_duplicated_utxos
0d20209 to
2f83b45
Compare
|
Rebased onto 362c3dc |
evanlinjin
left a comment
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 2f83b45
Just a nit for future reference.
| graph | ||
| // Get previous transaction | ||
| .get_tx(txin.previous_output.txid) | ||
| .ok_or(BuildFeeBumpError::UnknownUtxo(txin.previous_output))?; | ||
| let txout = &prev_tx.output[txin.previous_output.vout as usize]; | ||
|
|
||
| let chain_position = chain_positions | ||
| .get(&txin.previous_output.txid) | ||
| .cloned() | ||
| .ok_or(BuildFeeBumpError::UnknownUtxo(txin.previous_output))?; | ||
|
|
||
| let weighted_utxo = match txout_index.index_of_spk(txout.script_pubkey.clone()) { | ||
| Some(&(keychain, derivation_index)) => { | ||
| let satisfaction_weight = self | ||
| .public_descriptor(keychain) | ||
| .max_weight_to_satisfy() | ||
| .unwrap(); | ||
| WeightedUtxo { | ||
| utxo: Utxo::Local(LocalOutput { | ||
| outpoint: txin.previous_output, | ||
| txout: txout.clone(), | ||
| keychain, | ||
| is_spent: true, | ||
| derivation_index, | ||
| chain_position, | ||
| }), | ||
| satisfaction_weight, | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| None => { | ||
| let satisfaction_weight = Weight::from_wu_usize( | ||
| serialize(&txin.script_sig).len() * 4 + serialize(&txin.witness).len(), | ||
| ); | ||
| WeightedUtxo { | ||
| utxo: Utxo::Foreign { | ||
| outpoint: txin.previous_output, | ||
| sequence: txin.sequence, | ||
| psbt_input: Box::new(psbt::Input { | ||
| witness_utxo: Some(txout.clone()), | ||
| non_witness_utxo: Some(prev_tx.as_ref().clone()), | ||
| ..Default::default() | ||
| }), | ||
| }, | ||
| satisfaction_weight, | ||
| .ok_or(BuildFeeBumpError::UnknownUtxo(txin.previous_output)) | ||
| // Get chain position | ||
| .and_then(|prev_tx| { | ||
| chain_positions | ||
| .get(&txin.previous_output.txid) | ||
| .cloned() | ||
| .ok_or(BuildFeeBumpError::UnknownUtxo(txin.previous_output)) | ||
| .map(|chain_position| (prev_tx, chain_position)) | ||
| }) | ||
| .map(|(prev_tx, chain_position)| { | ||
| let txout = prev_tx.output[txin.previous_output.vout as usize].clone(); | ||
| match txout_index.index_of_spk(txout.script_pubkey.clone()) { | ||
| Some(&(keychain, derivation_index)) => ( | ||
| txin.previous_output, | ||
| WeightedUtxo { | ||
| satisfaction_weight: self | ||
| .public_descriptor(keychain) | ||
| .max_weight_to_satisfy() | ||
| .unwrap(), | ||
| utxo: Utxo::Local(LocalOutput { | ||
| outpoint: txin.previous_output, | ||
| txout: txout.clone(), | ||
| keychain, | ||
| is_spent: true, | ||
| derivation_index, | ||
| chain_position, | ||
| }), | ||
| }, | ||
| ), | ||
| None => { | ||
| let satisfaction_weight = Weight::from_wu_usize( | ||
| serialize(&txin.script_sig).len() * 4 | ||
| + serialize(&txin.witness).len(), | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| ( | ||
| txin.previous_output, | ||
| WeightedUtxo { | ||
| utxo: Utxo::Foreign { | ||
| outpoint: txin.previous_output, | ||
| sequence: txin.sequence, | ||
| psbt_input: Box::new(psbt::Input { | ||
| witness_utxo: txout | ||
| .script_pubkey | ||
| .witness_version() | ||
| .map(|_| txout.clone()), | ||
| non_witness_utxo: Some(prev_tx.as_ref().clone()), | ||
| ..Default::default() | ||
| }), | ||
| }, | ||
| satisfaction_weight, | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
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.
Nit: trying to make this section fully functional has made it harder to read. There is weird map statements, and it becomes hard to see whether we are map-ing on an iterator or option.
I would prefer the following:
let prev_tx = graph
.get_tx(txin.previous_output.txid)
.ok_or(BuildFeeBumpError::UnknownUtxo(txin.previous_output))?;
let chain_position = chain_positions
.get(&txin.previous_output.txid)
.cloned()
.ok_or(BuildFeeBumpError::UnknownUtxo(txin.previous_output))?;
let txout = prev_tx.output[txin.previous_output.vout as usize].clone();
let (outpoint, weighted_utxo) = match txout_index
.index_of_spk(txout.script_pubkey.clone())
{
Some(&(keychain, derivation_index)) => (
txin.previous_output,
WeightedUtxo {
satisfaction_weight: self
.public_descriptor(keychain)
.max_weight_to_satisfy()
.unwrap(),
utxo: Utxo::Local(LocalOutput {
outpoint: txin.previous_output,
txout: txout.clone(),
keychain,
is_spent: true,
derivation_index,
chain_position,
}),
},
),
None => {
let satisfaction_weight = Weight::from_wu_usize(
serialize(&txin.script_sig).len() * 4 + serialize(&txin.witness).len(),
);
(
txin.previous_output,
WeightedUtxo {
utxo: Utxo::Foreign {
outpoint: txin.previous_output,
sequence: txin.sequence,
psbt_input: Box::new(psbt::Input {
witness_utxo: txout
.script_pubkey
.witness_version()
.map(|_| txout.clone()),
non_witness_utxo: Some(prev_tx.as_ref().clone()),
..Default::default()
}),
},
satisfaction_weight,
},
)
}
};
Ok((outpoint, weighted_utxo))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.
I agree, will try to control the bias towards functional style.
…xOrdering::Untouched` 0522114 test(tx_builder): update precedence check of local UTXOs over add_foreign_utxos (valued mammal) 73bef28 doc(tx_builder): add info about manually selected UTxOs priority (nymius) 3316236 fix(tx_builder): preserve insertion order with TxOrdering::Untouched (nymius) Pull request description: ### Description On my attempt to fix bitcoindevkit/bdk#1794 in bitcoindevkit/bdk#1798, I broke the assumption that insertion order is preserved when `TxBuilder::ordering` is `TxOrdering::Untouched`. Some users are relying in this assumption, so here I'm trying to restore it back, without adding a new dependency for this single use case like #252, or creating a new struct just to track this. In this fourth alternative solution I'm going back to use `Vec` to store the manually selected UTxOs. I was reluctant to do it in this way because `HashMap` seems a better solution giving its property of avoiding duplicates, but as we also want to keep the secuential nature of the insertion of UTxOs in `TxBuilder`, here is an alternative aligned with that principle. May replace #252 May replace #261 . Fixes #244 ### Notes to the reviewers Also, as I was working on this, I came back to the following tests: - `test_prexisting_foreign_utxo_have_no_precedence_over_local_utxo_with_same_outpoint` - `test_prexisting_local_utxo_have_precedence_over_foreign_utxo_with_same_outpoint` Motivated during the implementation and review of bitcoindevkit/bdk#1798. Which required the underlying structure to also hold the properties of no duplication for manually selected UTxOs, as the structures were accessed directly for these cases. The test tries to cover the case when there are two wallets using the same descriptor, one tracks transactions and the other does not. The first passes UTxOs belonging to the second one and this one creates transactions using the `add_foreign_utxo` interface. In this case it was expected for any `LocalUtxo` of the offline wallet to supersede any conflicting foreign UTxO. But, the simulation of this case went against the borrowing constraints of rust. By how costly was to reproduce this behavior for me in the tests, I would like to have second opinions in the feasibility of the test case. ### Changelog notice No public APIs are changed by these commits. ### Checklists > [!IMPORTANT] > This pull request **DOES NOT** break the existing API * [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 +nightly fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing * [x] I've added tests for the new code * [x] I've expanded docs addressing new code * [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: ValuedMammal: reACK 0522114 oleonardolima: ACK 0522114 Tree-SHA512: f2726d75eab83e28cc748ac5cd6bd0c7f3dddb409ac61baf7d0a7030ddf81c11b10dbd5b18e8ac3d29a6afb4b8f29ee9a88f83094aebec771fdb4da2cd718326
Description
There were multiple calls for de-duplication of selected UTxOs in
Wallet::create_tx: (1) and (2).As the test
test_filter_duplicatesshows, there are four possible cases for duplication of UTxOs while feeding the coin selection algorithms.required_utxos,Wallet::list_unspent, which roots back the providedUTxOsto aHashMapwhich should avoid any duplication by definitionUTxOsare stored in aVecand no checks are performed about the duplicity of their members.Wallet::preselect_utxos, which avoid the processing of required UTxOs while listing the unspent available UTxOs in the wallet.This refactor does the following:
TxParams::utxostype to beHashSet<LocalOutput>avoiding the duplication case 3required_utxos,Wallet::list_unspentcomes from aHashMapwhich should avoid duplication by definition.WeightedUtxosto the last part of UTxO filtering, allowing the unification of the computation for local outputs.foreign_utxos, which should include a provided satisfation weight to use them effectively, andutxos, manually selected UTxOs for which the wallet can compute their satisfaction weight without external resources.With these changes all four cases would be covered, and
coin_selection::filter_duplicatesis no longer needed.Fixes #1794.
Notes to the reviewers
I added three test to cover the interesting cases for duplication:
- there are no duplicates in required utxos
- there are no duplicates in optional utxos
- there are no duplicates across optional and required utxos
the three of them have been prefixed with
not_duplicated_utxos*to allow its joint execution under the command:cargo test -- not_duplicated_utxosbecause the guarantees for the three conditions above are spread in different parts of the code.
Changelog notice
No changes to public APIs.
Checklists
cargo fmtandcargo clippybefore committing