feat(client): add async and blocking clients to submit txs package #114

acidbunny21 · 2025-01-22T08:58:15Z

Counterpart PR for Blockstream/electrs#119 to enable submitpackage API

src/api.rs

src/async.rs

src/blocking.rs

stevenroose

looks good, let just some nits. can confirm that the calls match the endpoint added in my pr on esplora (Blockstream/electrs#119)

src/blocking.rs

coveralls · 2025-01-27T14:07:43Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20371746341

Details

33 of 107 (30.84%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
8 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
Overall coverage decreased (-4.2%) to 86.428%

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/api.rs	0	12	0.0%
src/async.rs	14	44	31.82%
src/blocking.rs	19	51	37.25%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/async.rs	1	76.13%
src/blocking.rs	7	75.44%

Totals
Change from base Build 20348214326:	-4.2%
Covered Lines:	1401
Relevant Lines:	1621

💛 - Coveralls

Cargo.toml

src/api.rs

src/async.rs

tnull · 2025-01-29T11:26:02Z

src/api.rs

+pub struct SubmitPackageResult {
+    /// The transaction package result message. "success" indicates all transactions were accepted
+    /// into or are already in the mempool.
+    pub package_msg: String,


Do we know if the variants here are finite? Do we see a chance to parse this into an enum?

Agreed, that'd be best.

i agree that would be best, but as I can see here, there is no enum defined for that field. I'd be happy to update that part as soon as it is upgraded to one there

oleonardolima

It could use a test with mempool/electrs implementation, while it's not available in blockstream/electrs and electrsd, as I've looked on the other PR and looks like it's following the same API.

src/api.rs

oleonardolima · 2025-02-03T03:13:21Z

src/api.rs

+pub struct SubmitPackageResult {
+    /// The transaction package result message. "success" indicates all transactions were accepted
+    /// into or are already in the mempool.
+    pub package_msg: String,


Agreed, that'd be best.

acidbunny21 · 2025-02-03T15:23:03Z

It could use a test with mempool/electrs implementation, while it's not available in blockstream/electrs and electrsd, as I've looked on the other PR and looks like it's following the same API.

I'm okay with adding a test, but then we need to bump electrsd to 0.30 which introduce some breaking changes on bitcoind. Might be good to first bump it in a separated PR

src/async.rs

oleonardolima · 2025-02-10T16:28:20Z

It could use a test with mempool/electrs implementation, while it's not available in blockstream/electrs and electrsd, as I've looked on the other PR and looks like it's following the same API.

I'm okay with adding a test, but then we need to bump electrsd to 0.30 which introduce some breaking changes on bitcoind. Might be good to first bump it in a separated PR

Yes, agree that it can be done in another PR. Another way that I thought was adding a test (under #[ignore]) that uses live mempool.space to test it, so we could run locally and in another step on CI while we don't have a new release on electrsd with the blockstream's esplora changes. However I think it's better to just wait until Blockstream/electrs#119 is release and just bump everything.

acidbunny21 · 2025-02-21T17:36:10Z

@oleonardolima it looks like the pipeline failures are caused by something unrelated with the PR, could you help please? :)

oleonardolima · 2025-02-26T18:42:12Z

@oleonardolima it looks like the pipeline failures are caused by something unrelated with the PR, could you help please? :)

It's caused due to recent native-tls release which bumped their MSRV to 1.80.0, it should be fine after #116 lands and a rebase should fix it.

stevenroose · 2025-03-18T11:30:35Z

I think we uncovered a bug in here:

Reqwest(reqwest::Error { kind: Decode, source: Error("invalid type: floating point `0.0`, expected u64", line: 1, column: 230) })

I suspect it's in this field: pub base: Amount,. You should never use Amount's default deserialization. It has several options, but bitcoind does amounts as floating points:

#[serde(with = "amount::serde::as_btc")]
pub base: Amount,

the above should work

oleonardolima · 2025-08-20T19:05:36Z

@acidbunny21 Could you rebase and sign the commits on this one?

tnull

This needs a cargo fmt it seems

src/async.rs

acidbunny21 · 2025-09-11T15:55:35Z

just ran cargo fmt and addressed your comments. Sorry for the delay

ValuedMammal · 2025-09-11T17:29:17Z

Not sure why CI is being flaky.

oleonardolima · 2025-09-12T01:33:38Z

It's weird, running locally CI works just fine on master. I've tried to re-run CI steps without success.

tnull · 2025-10-13T13:30:07Z

Any update here?

@ValuedMammal can we add this to the summit tag?

acidbunny21 · 2025-10-16T17:40:38Z

@tnull @ValuedMammal let me know if i can be of any help to have this merged

9a7e826 fix(ci): pin dependencies to MSRV supported version (Leonardo Lima) Pull request description: To fix the MSRV CI steps, the following dependencies needed to be pinned to a previous version: - `socket2@0.6.1` to 0.5.10 - `webkpi-roots@1.0.3` to 1.0.1 - `openssl` to 0.10.73 - `openssl-sys` to 0.9.109 - `syn` to 2.0.106 I want to fix the CI so we can move forward with #114. After we cut a release with that one, we can move on to bumping the MSRV. ACKs for top commit: ValuedMammal: ACK 9a7e826 Tree-SHA512: 4a13e03a1c66ba554926686149f5fc33ec926a11c94228a3402b87317c6e8958034483a04de84c072092c785de6229ff484da6ee8a3de33781788b5780139cb8

oleonardolima

It probably needs a rebase to get the MSRV fixes for CI. Also, you should fix the path when calling post_request method, as @ValuedMammal noted in #135.

src/blocking.rs

oleonardolima · 2025-11-19T18:11:33Z

@acidbunny21 Is it okay if I take over this one? I want to move forward with this one and cut a release for rust-esplora-client, as I know @tnull has been looking forward to this.

acidbunny21 · 2025-11-20T15:38:11Z

@acidbunny21 Is it okay if I take over this one? I want to move forward with this one and cut a release for rust-esplora-client, as I know @tnull has been looking forward to this.

Yeah sure

tnull · 2025-12-15T09:47:33Z

It seems this branch is stale again by now and needs another rebase?

luisschwab

I didn't do any testing yet, but there's documentation missing on structs and missing trailing dots. Docs should follow the standard set on #147.

src/api.rs

src/blocking.rs

oleonardolima

tACK 7992b34

I've updated the example_wallet_esplora_blocking to build a zero-fee txA (v3), assert that it failed to relay due to expected: min relay fee not met, and did a CPFP with txB (v3) for the output and successfully submitted it as a package through the new API.

I've tested it for:

mempool.space API: I used testnet4 for syncing and submitting the package, see txA, and txB.
blockstream.info API: I used testnet3 (as testnet4 is not supported), though I had to use the mempool.space for syncing (due to blockstream rate limit issues), and only used blockstream.info API to try to broadcast the zero-fee and the submit package API, see txA and txB.

- adds new `submit_package` API to `AsyncClient` and `BlockingClient`, it has been added to esplora by `Blockstream/electrs#159`. - adds new `SubmitPackageResult`, `TxResult` and `MempoolFeesSubmitPackage` API structures. - changes the `post_request_hex` method to `post_request_bytes`, now handling `query_params` and having `Response` as return type. BREAKING CHANGE: changes the `broadcast` method to return the `txid` for broadcasted transaction, on both `AsyncClient` and `BlockingClient`.

oleonardolima · 2025-12-19T13:33:08Z

src/async.rs

+    pub async fn broadcast(&self, transaction: &Transaction) -> Result<Txid, Error> {
+        let body = serialize::<Transaction>(transaction).to_lower_hex_string();
+        let response = self.post_request_bytes("/tx", body, None).await?;
+        let txid = Txid::from_str(&response.text().await?).map_err(|_| Error::InvalidResponse)?;
+        Ok(txid)
+    }


I just noticed that landing this PR has a breaking change, due to this change here and in the blocking client.

@tnull Do you need the submit_package API as a non-breaking release?

oleonardolima · 2025-12-19T13:41:56Z

I've squashed all changes into a single patch as they touched the same files, now d9f3868

ErikDeSmedt suggested changes Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/api.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/api.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

stevenroose reviewed Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 2 times, most recently from 6a22216 to 01fb9c9 Compare January 23, 2025 13:41

oleonardolima assigned acidbunny21 Jan 27, 2025

oleonardolima added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 27, 2025

tnull reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/api.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 01fb9c9 to a5322c6 Compare January 29, 2025 08:34

tnull reviewed Jan 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

oleonardolima reviewed Feb 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

oleonardolima mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

deps(blockstream/electrs): bump blockstream/electrs to latest under a new feature RCasatta/electrsd#93

Open

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from a5322c6 to 6147e74 Compare February 7, 2025 04:40

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 2 times, most recently from c50be44 to 7886297 Compare March 1, 2025 07:45

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 2 times, most recently from cb707fb to c0ed77e Compare March 18, 2025 17:25

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from c0ed77e to 1f1fa23 Compare April 23, 2025 11:35

notmandatory added this to BDK Chain Apr 23, 2025

oleonardolima moved this to Needs Review in BDK Chain Aug 20, 2025

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 1f1fa23 to 4719808 Compare August 23, 2025 06:50

tnull reviewed Sep 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

ValuedMammal reviewed Sep 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/async.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

ValuedMammal mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2025

Test 114 #135

Closed

ValuedMammal added the summit Rust bitcoin summit label Oct 13, 2025

oleonardolima mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2025

fix(ci): pin dependencies to MSRV supported versions #138

Merged

oleonardolima reviewed Oct 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

oleonardolima mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2025

Release tracking chain-0.23.3 bitcoindevkit/bdk#2070

Open

3 tasks

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from d2f0c62 to d7b3de2 Compare November 24, 2025 22:39

ValuedMammal approved these changes Nov 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from d7b3de2 to bbb990c Compare December 16, 2025 09:23

oleonardolima requested a review from luisschwab December 18, 2025 15:40

luisschwab suggested changes Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/api.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

src/api.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

luisschwab mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025

chore(docs): add missing documentation #147

Merged

luisschwab assigned oleonardolima Dec 18, 2025

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 3 times, most recently from 7ab7dc3 to 7992b34 Compare December 18, 2025 19:55

oleonardolima reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 7992b34 to d9f3868 Compare December 19, 2025 13:40

feat(client): add async and blocking clients to submit txs package #114

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat(client): add async and blocking clients to submit txs package #114

Conversation

acidbunny21 commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stevenroose left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jan 27, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20371746341

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tnull Jan 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oleonardolima Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oleonardolima left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Feb 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Feb 10, 2025

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Feb 26, 2025

Uh oh!

stevenroose commented Mar 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

ValuedMammal commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Sep 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tnull commented Oct 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Oct 16, 2025

Uh oh!

oleonardolima left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Jan 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tnull Jan 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

stevenroose commented Mar 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

oleonardolima commented Sep 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tnull commented Oct 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

oleonardolima left a comment •

edited

Loading