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

[Qt] Add checkbox in the GUI to opt-in to RBF when creating a transaction #9592

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Mar 17, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@ryanofsky
Contributor

ryanofsky commented Jan 19, 2017

The first three commits come from @jonasschnelli's PR #8182

@jonasschnelli

utACK 054264a modulo send-dialog-confirmation text overhaul.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp Outdated
@morcos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@morcos

morcos Jan 20, 2017

Member

concept ACK
and lightly tested without problems

Member

morcos commented Jan 20, 2017

concept ACK
and lightly tested without problems

Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/walletmodel.h Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated src/wallet/wallet.cpp Outdated
Show outdated Hide outdated src/wallet/wallet.h Outdated
@jtimon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jtimon

jtimon Jan 23, 2017

Member

Concept ACK

Member

jtimon commented Jan 23, 2017

Concept ACK

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017

fixup! Allow to opt-into RBF when creating a transaction
Add signalRbf option to CCoinControl as suggested by
Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> in
bitcoin#9592 (comment)

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017

fixup! [Qt] Add simple optin-RBF checkbox and confirmation info
Set signalRbf via CCoinControl as suggested by
Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> in
bitcoin#9592 (comment)

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017

fixup! [Qt] Add simple optin-RBF checkbox and confirmation info
s/Allow/Request/ as suggested by Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> in
bitcoin#9592 (comment)

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017

fixup! [Qt] Add simple optin-RBF checkbox and confirmation info
Change RBF tooltip as suggested by Luke Dashjr <luke-jr+git@utopios.org> in
bitcoin#9592 (comment)

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017

fixup! [Qt] Change RBF checkbox to reflect -walletrbf setting
Access fWalletRbf global through WalletModel as suggested by
Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch> in
bitcoin#9592 (comment)
@ryanofsky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryanofsky

ryanofsky Jan 23, 2017

Contributor

Squashed 95bec7a -> 92b9ff6.

Contributor

ryanofsky commented Jan 23, 2017

Squashed 95bec7a -> 92b9ff6.

@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Jan 24, 2017

Member

Tested ACK 92b9ff6.

With a German UI, the text can look a bit strange (see screenshot).
Maybe we can add some pixels right margin?
bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 09 28 57

Screenshots:

bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 09 38 32

bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 09 38 37

Possible follow-up work:
-> Add a UI option for the global -walletrbf flag.
-> Maybe persist the checkbox state (state should probably survives restarts, = strong -walletrbf in GUI settings)

Member

jonasschnelli commented Jan 24, 2017

Tested ACK 92b9ff6.

With a German UI, the text can look a bit strange (see screenshot).
Maybe we can add some pixels right margin?
bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 09 28 57

Screenshots:

bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 09 38 32

bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 09 38 37

Possible follow-up work:
-> Add a UI option for the global -walletrbf flag.
-> Maybe persist the checkbox state (state should probably survives restarts, = strong -walletrbf in GUI settings)

@aesedepece

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aesedepece

aesedepece Jan 24, 2017

I'm wondering whether it would make more sense to put the RBF checkbox next to the fee options instead. That would definitely avoid the layout issue with "verbose" languages like German or Spanish.

Think about it. We all know that RBF allows replacing transaction A with transaction B as long as A has no confirmations yet and B includes a higher fee. Nevertheless, as far as I know, the intended use case for RBF in Core is only to allow the user to increase the fee afterwards from the transactions history view by right-clicking, pressing "Increase fee..." and selecting a higher fee.

My point is that the user will not perceive the transaction being replaced but rather being "upgraded". That's why I believe that from an UX point of view, RBF is more related to fees than to a transaction as a whole, and therefore putting the checkbox in the fees frame makes much more sense to me.

aesedepece commented Jan 24, 2017

I'm wondering whether it would make more sense to put the RBF checkbox next to the fee options instead. That would definitely avoid the layout issue with "verbose" languages like German or Spanish.

Think about it. We all know that RBF allows replacing transaction A with transaction B as long as A has no confirmations yet and B includes a higher fee. Nevertheless, as far as I know, the intended use case for RBF in Core is only to allow the user to increase the fee afterwards from the transactions history view by right-clicking, pressing "Increase fee..." and selecting a higher fee.

My point is that the user will not perceive the transaction being replaced but rather being "upgraded". That's why I believe that from an UX point of view, RBF is more related to fees than to a transaction as a whole, and therefore putting the checkbox in the fees frame makes much more sense to me.

@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Jan 24, 2017

Member

I think @aesedepece made a good point. Moving it into the fee section makes sense.

Member

jonasschnelli commented Jan 24, 2017

I think @aesedepece made a good point. Moving it into the fee section makes sense.

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2017

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2017

@ryanofsky

Moved checkbox into fee section in fac1f09.

Show outdated Hide outdated src/qt/sendcoinsdialog.cpp Outdated
@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Jan 24, 2017

Member

Now the labels misses some bottom margin.

bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 21 28 42

This should fix it:

diff --git a/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui b/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui
index a633478..e25fe05 100644
--- a/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui
+++ b/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui
@@ -1178,8 +1178,8 @@
           </property>
           <property name="sizeHint" stdset="0">
            <size>
-            <width>800</width>
-            <height>1</height>
+            <width>40</width>
+            <height>5</height>
            </size>
           </property>
          </spacer>
Member

jonasschnelli commented Jan 24, 2017

Now the labels misses some bottom margin.

bildschirmfoto 2017-01-24 um 21 28 42

This should fix it:

diff --git a/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui b/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui
index a633478..e25fe05 100644
--- a/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui
+++ b/src/qt/forms/sendcoinsdialog.ui
@@ -1178,8 +1178,8 @@
           </property>
           <property name="sizeHint" stdset="0">
            <size>
-            <width>800</width>
-            <height>1</height>
+            <width>40</width>
+            <height>5</height>
            </size>
           </property>
          </spacer>

ryanofsky added a commit to ryanofsky/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jan 25, 2017

jonasschnelli and others added some commits Apr 5, 2016

[Qt] Change RBF checkbox to reflect -walletrbf setting
Before this commit, the checkbox would always start off unchecked. After this
commit it will respect the -walletrbf setting (which is currently false by
default).
@ryanofsky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryanofsky

ryanofsky Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

Thanks added in f4aac9e, confirmed the change does improve the spacing, and squashed f4aac9e -> c4e4792 (grbf.5 -> grbf.6)

Contributor

ryanofsky commented Jan 25, 2017

Thanks added in f4aac9e, confirmed the change does improve the spacing, and squashed f4aac9e -> c4e4792 (grbf.5 -> grbf.6)

@jonasschnelli

(again) Tested ACK c4e4792

if (ui->optInRBF->isChecked())
{
questionString.append("<hr /><span>");
questionString.append(tr("This transaction signals replaceability (optin-RBF)."));

This comment has been minimized.

@luke-jr

luke-jr Feb 2, 2017

Member

I still think this is likely to confuse users. Why must we say so here? (The alternative case seems much more of a liability...)

@luke-jr

luke-jr Feb 2, 2017

Member

I still think this is likely to confuse users. Why must we say so here? (The alternative case seems much more of a liability...)

This comment has been minimized.

@ryanofsky

ryanofsky Feb 3, 2017

Contributor

@jonasschnelli or others, you should comment if you think the "This transaction signals replaceability" text is useful, otherwise I'm fine with removing it.

@ryanofsky

ryanofsky Feb 3, 2017

Contributor

@jonasschnelli or others, you should comment if you think the "This transaction signals replaceability" text is useful, otherwise I'm fine with removing it.

This comment has been minimized.

@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Feb 3, 2017

Member

I don't know whats best here.
Somehow I agree with @luke-jr that it would probably be better the label non-RBF transactions (something like "this transaction signals to be final"), but meh.

We also need to respect that RBF is deployed as a new feature and maybe users are expecting to see wether the new features is enabled or not.

So, no strong opinion. The PRs current solution seems acceptable to me.

@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Feb 3, 2017

Member

I don't know whats best here.
Somehow I agree with @luke-jr that it would probably be better the label non-RBF transactions (something like "this transaction signals to be final"), but meh.

We also need to respect that RBF is deployed as a new feature and maybe users are expecting to see wether the new features is enabled or not.

So, no strong opinion. The PRs current solution seems acceptable to me.

@ryanofsky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryanofsky

ryanofsky Mar 8, 2017

Contributor

This PR has several ACKs. Should it be merged?

Contributor

ryanofsky commented Mar 8, 2017

This PR has several ACKs. Should it be merged?

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Mar 8, 2017

Member

Probably needs a GUI way to actually use it first.

Member

luke-jr commented Mar 8, 2017

Probably needs a GUI way to actually use it first.

@ryanofsky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryanofsky

ryanofsky Mar 8, 2017

Contributor

Probably needs a GUI way to actually use it first.

In that case, this should not be merged until #9697 is merged. Would note though that there is no "GUI way" to use #9697 without this PR, so the dependency is somewhat circular.

Contributor

ryanofsky commented Mar 8, 2017

Probably needs a GUI way to actually use it first.

In that case, this should not be merged until #9697 is merged. Would note though that there is no "GUI way" to use #9697 without this PR, so the dependency is somewhat circular.

@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Mar 8, 2017

Member

Merging them at the same time seems logical.

Member

luke-jr commented Mar 8, 2017

Merging them at the same time seems logical.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Mar 14, 2017

Member

Adding 0.15 milestone

Member

laanwj commented Mar 14, 2017

Adding 0.15 milestone

@jonasschnelli

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonasschnelli

jonasschnelli Mar 17, 2017

Member

Going to merge this (even without #9697). A) it can make sense without a Qt bumper (at least you can bump over the console) and B) I don't want to kick this back to a rebase phase.

Member

jonasschnelli commented Mar 17, 2017

Going to merge this (even without #9697). A) it can make sense without a Qt bumper (at least you can bump over the console) and B) I don't want to kick this back to a rebase phase.

@jonasschnelli jonasschnelli merged commit c4e4792 into bitcoin:master Mar 17, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

jonasschnelli added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2017

Merge #9592: [Qt] Add checkbox in the GUI to opt-in to RBF when creat…
…ing a transaction

c4e4792 [Qt] Change RBF checkbox to reflect -walletrbf setting (Russell Yanofsky)
838a58e [Qt] Add simple optin-RBF checkbox and confirmation info (Jonas Schnelli)
568c05a Allow to opt-into RBF when creating a transaction (Jonas Schnelli)

Tree-SHA512: 3d52dcd4e44da8aed4d631748074afef78d38c860f2a8b95323f4801a989d6599a3498a753fc10daba4098c527ef5a0eb942e5b3f1bfd656e1a6bd272b8e6c57

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2017

Closed

TODO for release notes 0.15.0 #9889

12 of 12 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment