Add support for bitcoin core 29.0 #131

GideonBature · 2025-04-19T14:45:45Z

This PR adds support for the newly released bitcoin core version - v29.0

Updated RPCs

Implement getmininginfo which now returns nBits and the current target in the target field. It also returns a next object which specifies the height, nBits, difficulty, and target for the next block. (test added)
Implement getblock and getblockheader which now return the current target in the target field (test added)
Implement getblockchaininfo and getchainstates which now return nBits and the current target in the target field. (test added)
Implement getblocktemplate whose RPC curtime (BIP22) and mintime (BIP23) fields now account for the timewarp fix proposed in BIP94 on all networks. (test added)

New RPCs

Implement getdescriptoractivity rpc method which can be used to find all spend/receive activity relevant to a given set of descriptors within a set of specified blocks. (test added)

Closes #129

tcharding · 2025-04-21T22:09:27Z

CI fail can be fixed by creating the RPC help file, I haven't downloaded Core v29 yet but I'd expect that on this branch we could do:

contrib/run-bitcoind.sh start v29
bt29 help > verify/rpc-api-v29.txt

tcharding

Man this is looking pretty good! This crate is hard to work on so don't feel bad if you miss things. I'm having a hard time reviewing because the changeset is so big but I've left a few comments that will make it a fair bit smaller. Keep at it! Appreciate your effort.

types/src/v17/blockchain/mod.rs

types/src/v29/mod.rs

types/src/v29/blockchain/mod.rs

client/src/client_sync/v29/mod.rs

client/src/client_sync/v29/blockchain.rs

integration_test/tests/blockchain.rs

GideonBature · 2025-04-22T10:32:31Z

CI fail can be fixed by creating the RPC help file, I haven't downloaded Core v29 yet but I'd expect that on this branch we could do:
contrib/run-bitcoind.sh start v29
bt29 help > verify/rpc-api-v29.txt

I tried running the command after starting the bitcoind v29, but it keeps say the bt29 command not found, checked the repository to see if I can get anything that relates to that, but didn't find any...

tcharding · 2025-04-22T20:50:54Z

Oh I have a shell alias for each version, for v28 I have

bt28: aliased to bitcoin-cli -rpcconnect=localhost:28049 -rpcuser=*** -rpcpassword=***

And fill in the stars for your setup. Remember the leading 280 comes from the config file of .run-bitcoind.conf

GideonBature · 2025-04-23T00:30:17Z

Oh I have a shell alias for each version, for v28 I have
bt28: aliased to bitcoin-cli -rpcconnect=localhost:28049 -rpcuser=*** -rpcpassword=***
And fill in the stars for your setup. Remember the leading 280 comes from the config file of .run-bitcoind.conf

Thank you... It's done!

node/src/versions.rs

types/src/v29/mod.rs

tcharding · 2025-04-29T09:00:27Z

Can you get rid of all the formatting changes please.

GideonBature · 2025-04-29T16:47:46Z

Can you get rid of all the formatting changes please.

Done!

tcharding · 2025-04-29T21:28:19Z

It is surprising to see changes to types modules for any version other than v29. There are changes to v17. Please either remove them or justify why the changes are made.

GideonBature · 2025-04-30T16:33:23Z

It is surprising to see changes to types modules for any version other than v29. There are changes to v17. Please either remove them or justify why the changes are made.

Alright, so for v29, the getblocktemplate returns a Target field, in that case, I saw that v17 already has the getblocktemplate error, thus, I decided to add the target field Error variant to it so I could just reuse it for v29 instead of implementing the same thing for v29... I don't know if that counts... That was the reason why I added the additional field, but if it doesn't align with how the codebase is supposed to be, I can revert it back to it's original form and re-implement the error for v29 with target field....

tcharding · 2025-05-01T00:11:03Z

Yes please. Anything that is different in one version to another should have a separate type, errors included. I'm not totally convince that we should re-use errors at all but we already do in submitpackage IIRC and its kinda nice.

GideonBature · 2025-05-01T07:11:16Z

Yes please. Anything that is different in one version to another should have a separate type, errors included. I'm not totally convince that we should re-use errors at all but we already do in submitpackage IIRC and its kinda nice.

Alright, noted, I am going to do that right away...

types/src/v29/mod.rs

types/src/model/blockchain.rs

tcharding · 2025-05-18T23:20:29Z

types/src/model/blockchain.rs

+    /// The bits
+    pub bits: Option<CompactTarget>, // Only from v29 onwards
+    /// The difficulty target.
+    pub target: Option<Target>, // Only from v29 onwards


Duplicate above.

tcharding · 2025-05-18T23:21:21Z

Man it looks like you haven't rebased this for a while. You likely need to rebase on master then check a bunch of files using diff to see what changed. That is how I found the mistakes in types/src/v29/mod.rs.

GideonBature · 2025-05-19T17:38:05Z

Man it looks like you haven't rebased this for a while. You likely need to rebase on master then check a bunch of files using diff to see what changed. That is how I found the mistakes in types/src/v29/mod.rs.

seems I had a mix up somewhere. Thank you for pointing these out.

GideonBature · 2025-05-19T18:05:48Z

The Most recent changes I made was to resolve pending issues, despite I rebase master earlier, seems somethings didn't apply the way they're supposed to, took care of that also. Thank you!

tcharding · 2025-05-21T05:19:26Z

I pushed to your branch man, hope you don't mind. I'll wait till you take a look in case you want to ack my changes then if CI is green we can merge.

GideonBature · 2025-05-21T11:42:41Z

ACK 40810ad.

Thank you so much for pushing this forward...

jamillambert

Firstly an apology for jumping in at this late stage, it is looking good and I didn't see anything major. There are just a few things that should be changed before merging.

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T14:48:15Z

client/src/client_sync/v29/mod.rs

+//! We ignore option arguments unless they effect the shape of the returned JSON data.
+pub mod blockchain;


Suggested change

//! We ignore option arguments unless they effect the shape of the returned JSON data.

pub mod blockchain;

//! We ignore option arguments unless they effect the shape of the returned JSON data.

pub mod blockchain;

Ooph, good eye!

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T15:10:17Z

integration_test/tests/blockchain.rs

+#[cfg(not(feature = "v29"))]
 #[test]
 fn blockchain__get_blockchain_info__modelled() {


Suggested change

#[cfg(not(feature = "v29"))]

#[test]

fn blockchain__get_blockchain_info__modelled() {

#[test]

fn blockchain__get_blockchain_info__modelled() {

#[cfg(not(feature = "v29"))]

// Call to a pre v29 test function, i.e. what this test is now

#[cfg(feature = "v29")]

// Call to a v29 test

The v29 rpc still exists so should be tested. It could be done as a follow up PR but then the table in types should say UNTESTED for getblockchaininfo in v29

Oh yes this is better.

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T15:28:21Z

integration_test/tests/mining.rs

    node1.mine_a_block();
    node2.mine_a_block();
    node3.mine_a_block();
+    std::thread::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_millis(500));


Suggested change

std::thread::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_millis(500));

What is this for? The test passes fine on my end without it.
NB. There is an intermittent error that causes a random test to fail, running the test again usually passes: failed to create node: it appears that bitcoind is not reachable

I'd guess its 'wait for nodes to start'? And I'd guess that its from an intermittent failure during dev. Ok to remove or keep but if any time was lost debugging in the past because of this I'd keep it. Should have a comment on it if we keep it. I believe I mentioned this before in review at some stage?

I just removed it.

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T15:50:22Z

verify/src/method/v29.rs

+    Method::new_numeric("uptime", "uptime"),
+    // mining
+    Method::new_modelled("getblocktemplate", "GetBlockTemplate", "get_block_template"),
+    Method::new_no_model("getmininginfo", "GetMiningInfo", "get_mining_info"),


Suggested change

Method::new_no_model("getmininginfo", "GetMiningInfo", "get_mining_info"),

Method::new_modelled("getmininginfo", "GetMiningInfo", "get_mining_info"),

@tcharding how is this handled when no model is required for earlier versions? Verify currently complains for all versions.
Although for this case it makes sense to add a model for all versions.

Oh this is wrong, thanks man. Changed to new_modelled for all versions and implemented into_model for the v17 type.

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T16:01:42Z

verify/src/method/v29.rs

+    Method::new_numeric("getconnectioncount", "get_connection_count"),
+    Method::new_no_model("getnettotals", "GetNetTotals", "get_net_totals"),
+    Method::new_modelled("getnetworkinfo", "GetNetworkInfo", "get_network_info"),
+    Method::new_no_model("getnodeaddresses", "GetNodeAddresses", "get_node_addresses"),


Suggested change

Method::new_no_model("getnodeaddresses", "GetNodeAddresses", "get_node_addresses"),

Method::new_modelled("getnodeaddresses", "GetNodeAddresses", "get_node_addresses"),

Recent change in master needs to be added.

Niiiice - done.

I fixed up all the mod.rs in types too.

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T16:18:55Z

types/src/v29/blockchain/error.rs

+            PreviousBlockHash(ref e) =>
+                write_err!(f, "conversion of the `previous_bock_hash` field failed"; e),
+            NextBlockHash(ref e) =>
+                write_err!(f, "conversion of the `next_bock_hash` field failed"; e),


Suggested change

write_err!(f, "conversion of the `next_bock_hash` field failed"; e),

write_err!(f, "conversion of the `next_block_hash` field failed"; e),

Good eye, fixed in v17 also.

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T16:22:36Z

types/src/v29/mining/mod.rs

+    /// Maximum allowable input to coinbase transaction, including the generation award and transaction fees (in satoshis).
+    #[serde(rename = "coinbasevalue")]
+    pub coinbase_value: i64,
+    /// A list of supported features,for example `proporsal`


Suggested change

/// A list of supported features,for example `proporsal`

/// A list of supported features, for example `proposal`

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T16:25:17Z

types/src/v29/mining/mod.rs

+    pub coinbase_value: i64,
+    /// A list of supported features,for example `proporsal`
+    pub capabilities: Vec<String>,
+    /// ID to include with a request to longpool on an update to this template


Suggested change

/// ID to include with a request to longpool on an update to this template

/// ID to include with a request to longpoll on an update to this template

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T16:25:41Z

types/src/v29/mining/mod.rs

+    pub capabilities: Vec<String>,
+    /// ID to include with a request to longpool on an update to this template
+    #[serde(rename = "longpollid")]
+    pub long_pool_id: String,


Suggested change

pub long_pool_id: String,

pub long_poll_id: String,

jamillambert · 2025-05-21T16:28:20Z

types/src/v29/network.rs

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0
+
+//! The JSON-RPC API for Bitcoin Core `v28` - network.


Suggested change

//! The JSON-RPC API for Bitcoin Core `v28` - network.

//! The JSON-RPC API for Bitcoin Core `v29` - network.

tcharding · 2025-05-21T23:07:35Z

Bother, we both force pushed. I went through you changes and I think I got all the ones that were correct. Can you not force push again please man. I'm going to get this through CI then merge it and we can follow up if needed.

Add support for the latest version of Core. Along the way fix various bugs, typos, and mistakes repo wide. Co-authored-by: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]>

tcharding · 2025-05-22T00:03:46Z

I've made the PR into a single commit, you are the author still @GideonBature and I added myself using a co-developed-by tag.

tcharding · 2025-05-22T00:04:43Z

Phew - that was hard.

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 4 times, most recently from 5438355 to 1dbf4df Compare April 19, 2025 18:15

tcharding reviewed Apr 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 2 times, most recently from dc856f3 to 3c6c22f Compare April 22, 2025 20:08

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 3c6c22f to 8135a58 Compare April 23, 2025 00:29

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 2 times, most recently from 798a62e to 2308f10 Compare April 23, 2025 05:19

tcharding reviewed Apr 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

node/src/versions.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 2 times, most recently from 20080f5 to 87a78dd Compare April 28, 2025 15:15

tcharding reviewed Apr 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

types/src/v29/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 2 times, most recently from fb921bd to 5709498 Compare April 29, 2025 16:46

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 3 times, most recently from fa9350a to 1db66bf Compare April 29, 2025 17:13

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 1db66bf to ab6e0aa Compare May 1, 2025 16:04

tcharding reviewed May 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 3e54aff to 521f814 Compare May 19, 2025 18:03

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 2 times, most recently from b46666e to 94554b6 Compare May 19, 2025 18:16

tcharding force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 94554b6 to 76aaf89 Compare May 21, 2025 05:18

tcharding force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 76aaf89 to 40810ad Compare May 21, 2025 05:22

jamillambert reviewed May 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

GideonBature force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from b3fd549 to 40810ad Compare May 21, 2025 18:09

tcharding force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 40810ad to 6d4640a Compare May 21, 2025 23:06

tcharding force-pushed the support-29.0 branch 9 times, most recently from 002dec9 to 1214d36 Compare May 21, 2025 23:55

Add support for Bitcoin Core v29.0

dcccb50

Add support for the latest version of Core. Along the way fix various bugs, typos, and mistakes repo wide. Co-authored-by: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]>

tcharding force-pushed the support-29.0 branch from 1214d36 to dcccb50 Compare May 21, 2025 23:59

tcharding merged commit 1462881 into rust-bitcoin:master May 22, 2025
28 checks passed

GideonBature deleted the support-29.0 branch May 31, 2025 08:38

		//! We ignore option arguments unless they effect the shape of the returned JSON data.
		pub mod blockchain;

	Method::new_no_model("getmininginfo", "GetMiningInfo", "get_mining_info"),
	Method::new_modelled("getmininginfo", "GetMiningInfo", "get_mining_info"),

	Method::new_no_model("getnodeaddresses", "GetNodeAddresses", "get_node_addresses"),
	Method::new_modelled("getnodeaddresses", "GetNodeAddresses", "get_node_addresses"),

	write_err!(f, "conversion of the `next_bock_hash` field failed"; e),
	write_err!(f, "conversion of the `next_block_hash` field failed"; e),

	/// A list of supported features,for example `proporsal`
	/// A list of supported features, for example `proposal`

	/// ID to include with a request to longpool on an update to this template
	/// ID to include with a request to longpoll on an update to this template

		@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
		// SPDX-License-Identifier: CC0-1.0

		//! The JSON-RPC API for Bitcoin Core `v28` - network.

Add support for bitcoin core 29.0 #131

Add support for bitcoin core 29.0 #131

Uh oh!

Conversation

GideonBature commented Apr 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Updated RPCs

New RPCs

Uh oh!

tcharding commented Apr 21, 2025

Uh oh!

tcharding left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented Apr 22, 2025

Uh oh!

tcharding commented Apr 22, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented Apr 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tcharding commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

tcharding commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

tcharding commented May 1, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented May 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tcharding commented May 18, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented May 19, 2025

Uh oh!

tcharding commented May 21, 2025

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented May 21, 2025

Uh oh!

jamillambert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tcharding May 21, 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GideonBature commented Apr 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tcharding May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tcharding May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tcharding commented May 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading