RPC: Add ancestor{count,size,fees} to listunspent output by luke-jr · Pull Request #12677 · bitcoin/bitcoin

luke-jr · 2018-03-12T18:01:35Z

Requested by a user

promag

Could add tests for new fields. Also, help message could state when these are in the response.

pacamoto · 2018-03-13T14:00:11Z

Thank you Luke for taking it into consideration and adding it !

meshcollider · 2018-03-13T20:53:26Z

Concept ACK, perhaps it'd be cleaner to sub-object them like you put in the title of the PR

sipa · 2018-03-17T00:39:35Z

Concept ACK

promag · 2018-05-03T08:15:36Z

@luke-jr is this still relevant? There are a couple of suggestions above and it's missing test(s) update.

achow101 · 2018-07-09T22:21:12Z

utACK daeb431

maflcko · 2018-07-10T17:30:15Z

@promag Indeed, needs a trivial test where they are all different from 0

DrahtBot · 2018-10-20T11:07:45Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#22798 (doc: Fix RPC result documentation by MarcoFalke)
#22689 (rpc: deprecate top-level fee fields in getmempool RPCs by josibake)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

luke-jr · 2019-02-12T13:48:20Z

Rebased and added tests

luke-jr · 2019-04-06T16:29:23Z

Rebased again

DrahtBot · 2019-09-30T13:02:40Z

There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase, so I am closing this for now. Please let me know when you want to continue working on this, so the pull request can be re-opened.

sipa · 2019-10-18T03:32:44Z

Concept ACK

ghost

tACK 7c0b6d6

$ bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet=W1 listunspent 0

[
  {
    "txid": "f3c7ab973f3f1857135ae9e9b10da8e85f6482a2a5d45d22d3aa20609e408ef7",
    "vout": 1,
    "address": "tb1qea2wjf035dm55zmvpwzaagfjvhhg44dycj4dvh",
    "label": "",
    "scriptPubKey": "0014cf54e925f1a3774a0b6c0b85dea13265ee8ad5a4",
    "amount": 0.00100000,
    "confirmations": 0,
    "ancestorcount": 2,
    "ancestorsize": 349,
    "ancestorfees": 350,
    "spendable": true,
    "solvable": true,
    "desc": "wpkh([6e03b4ba/0'/0'/4']02d24349d6b5a4eb456d623c998ca3af8f9f60277373e6e59bb7292188c681dc35)#kgxt3tcu",
    "safe": false
  }
]

    "ancestorcount": 2,
    "ancestorsize": 349,
    "ancestorfees": 350,

…ckages

luke-jr · 2021-09-16T20:36:30Z

Addressed various nits, needs re-ACKs

laanwj · 2021-09-16T21:12:47Z

Diff LGTM https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7c0b6d6..6cb60f3

achow101

Code Review ACK 6cb60f3

naumenkogs

ACK 6cb60f3

ghost · 2021-09-17T13:37:07Z

reACK 6cb60f3

fjahr · 2021-09-18T09:54:52Z

Code review re-ACK 6cb60f3

kiminuo · 2021-09-19T09:14:13Z

                            {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "confirmations", "The number of confirmations"},
+                            {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "ancestorcount", /* optional */ true, "The number of in-mempool ancestor transactions, including this one (if transaction is in the mempool)"},
+                            {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "ancestorsize", /* optional */ true, "The virtual transaction size of in-mempool ancestors, including this one (if transaction is in the mempool)"},
+                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT, "ancestorfees", /* optional */ true, "The total fees of in-mempool ancestors (including this one) with fee deltas used for mining priority in " + CURRENCY_ATOM + " (if transaction is in the mempool)"},


When testing this, I can see "ancestorfees": 164 in my output. Is it correct to mark the result type as RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT here? I would probably expect RPCResult::Type::NUM given that the amount is in satoshis.

More complete output on my machine:

[ { "txid": "<txid>", "vout": 1, "address": "<address>", "label": "", "scriptPubKey": "<spk>", "amount": 0.00100000, "confirmations": 0, "ancestorcount": 1, "ancestorsize": 164, "ancestorfees": 164, "spendable": true, "solvable": true, "desc": "<desc>", "safe": false } ]

kiminuo · 2021-09-19T09:23:55Z

                            {RPCResult::Type::STR, "scriptPubKey", "the script key"},
                            {RPCResult::Type::STR_AMOUNT, "amount", "the transaction output amount in " + CURRENCY_UNIT},
                            {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "confirmations", "The number of confirmations"},
+                            {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "ancestorcount", /* optional */ true, "The number of in-mempool ancestor transactions, including this one (if transaction is in the mempool)"},


#22903 makes me wonder whether one should change:

/* optional */ true -> /* optional= */ true

kiminuo · 2021-09-19T09:45:20Z

ACK 6cb60f3

darosior

utACK 6cb60f3

sipa · 2021-09-20T19:56:13Z

Shouldn't "ancestorfees" use ValueFromAmount here?

jonatack

A few quick comments for a follow-up.

jonatack · 2021-09-20T20:00:54Z

+------------
+
+- `listunspent` now includes `ancestorcount`, `ancestorsize`, and
+`ancestorfees` for each transaction output that is still in the mempool.


Missing PR number at the end: s/mempool./mempool. (#12677)

jonatack · 2021-09-20T20:02:08Z

        return TransactionError::OK == err;
    }
-    void getTransactionAncestry(const uint256& txid, size_t& ancestors, size_t& descendants) override
+    void getTransactionAncestry(const uint256& txid, size_t& ancestors, size_t& descendants, size_t* ancestorsize, CAmount* ancestorfees) override


function params naming: s/ancestorsize/ancestor_size/, idem for ancestorfees

jonatack · 2021-09-20T20:03:53Z

+            if (ancestor_count) {
+                entry.pushKV("ancestorcount", uint64_t(ancestor_count));
+                entry.pushKV("ancestorsize", uint64_t(ancestor_size));
+                entry.pushKV("ancestorfees", uint64_t(ancestor_fees));


These three new fields should be snakecase, e.g. s/ancestorcount/ancestor_count/.

Should they use UniValue ValueFromAmount() for the amount to print? in which case the units would need to be listed in the help as BTC instead of sat.

…t output 6cb60f3 doc/release-notes: Add new listunspent fields (Luke Dashjr) 0be2f17 QA: Add tests for listunspent ancestor{count,size,fees} to mempool_packages (Luke Dashjr) 6966e80 RPC: Add ancestor{count,size,fees} to listunspent output (Luke Dashjr) 3f77dfd Expose ancestorsize and ancestorfees via getTransactionAncestry (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: Requested by a user ACKs for top commit: prayank23: reACK bitcoin@6cb60f3 fjahr: Code review re-ACK 6cb60f3 kiminuo: ACK [6cb60f3](bitcoin@6cb60f3) achow101: Code Review ACK 6cb60f3 naumenkogs: ACK 6cb60f3 darosior: utACK 6cb60f3 Tree-SHA512: 5d16e5799558691e5853ab7ea2cc85514cb45da3ce69134d855c71845beef32ec6af5ab28d4462683e9800c8ea126f162773a9d3d5660edac08fd8edbfeda173

Summary: Expose ancestorsize and ancestorfees via getTransactionAncestry Add ancestor{count,size,fees} to listunspent output Add tests and release notes. Note that fees returned by listunspent are in XEC in Bitcoin ABC, not satoshis. Backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#12677 | core#12677]] Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, Fabien Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D12151

fanquake added the RPC/REST/ZMQ label Mar 12, 2018

promag reviewed Mar 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp Outdated

conscott reviewed Mar 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp Outdated

luke-jr force-pushed the listunspent_ancestorinfo branch from 3815e1b to daeb431 Compare March 31, 2018 07:29

DrahtBot closed this Jul 21, 2018

DrahtBot reopened this Jul 21, 2018

This was referenced Oct 20, 2018

Rpc help helper class #14502

Closed

Add P2SH-P2WSH support to listunspent RPC #14481

Merged

This was referenced Oct 23, 2018

Move util files to directory #14555

Merged

Wallet/RPC: sweepprivkeys method to scan UTXO set and send to local wallet #9152

Closed

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Nov 5, 2018

bitcoin deleted a comment from DrahtBot Feb 7, 2019

luke-jr force-pushed the listunspent_ancestorinfo branch from c401d85 to 18922f8 Compare February 12, 2019 13:49

DrahtBot added Needs rebase and removed Needs rebase labels Feb 12, 2019

luke-jr force-pushed the listunspent_ancestorinfo branch from 18922f8 to 305ab80 Compare April 6, 2019 16:29

DrahtBot added the Up for grabs label Sep 30, 2019

DrahtBot closed this Sep 30, 2019

maflcko added the good first issue label Sep 30, 2019

achow101 reviewed Sep 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp Outdated

ghost approved these changes Sep 14, 2021

View reviewed changes

luke-jr added 3 commits September 16, 2021 20:34

RPC: Add ancestor{count,size,fees} to listunspent output

6966e80

QA: Add tests for listunspent ancestor{count,size,fees} to mempool_pa…

0be2f17

…ckages

doc/release-notes: Add new listunspent fields

6cb60f3

luke-jr force-pushed the listunspent_ancestorinfo branch from 7c0b6d6 to 6cb60f3 Compare September 16, 2021 20:36

luke-jr requested review from achow101, fjahr, jonatack, maflcko, naumenkogs and promag September 16, 2021 20:36

achow101 reviewed Sep 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

naumenkogs approved these changes Sep 17, 2021

View reviewed changes

kiminuo reviewed Sep 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

darosior reviewed Sep 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

laanwj merged commit 488e745 into bitcoin:master Sep 20, 2021

jonatack reviewed Sep 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

ryanofsky mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2021

Multiprocess bitcoin #10102

Draft

bitcoin locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 30, 2022

Conversation

luke-jr commented Mar 12, 2018 • edited by DrahtBot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

promag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pacamoto commented Mar 13, 2018

Uh oh!

meshcollider commented Mar 13, 2018

Uh oh!

sipa commented Mar 17, 2018

Uh oh!

promag commented May 3, 2018

Uh oh!

achow101 commented Jul 9, 2018

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Jul 10, 2018

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Oct 20, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Conflicts

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Feb 12, 2019

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Apr 6, 2019

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 30, 2019

Uh oh!

sipa commented Oct 18, 2019

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ghost left a comment • edited by ghost Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Sep 16, 2021

Uh oh!

laanwj commented Sep 16, 2021

Uh oh!

achow101 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

naumenkogs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ghost commented Sep 17, 2021

Uh oh!

fjahr commented Sep 18, 2021

Uh oh!

kiminuo Sep 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kiminuo Sep 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kiminuo commented Sep 19, 2021

Uh oh!

darosior left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sipa commented Sep 20, 2021

Uh oh!

jonatack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack Sep 20, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack Sep 20, 2021 • 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!

jonatack Sep 20, 2021 • 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!

Reviewers

luke-jr commented Mar 12, 2018 •

edited by DrahtBot

Loading

DrahtBot commented Oct 20, 2018 •

edited

Loading

ghost left a comment •

edited by ghost

Loading

jonatack Sep 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jonatack Sep 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading