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
tx_builder: Relax generic constraints on TxBuilder #1344
tx_builder: Relax generic constraints on TxBuilder #1344
Conversation
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.
It would be nice to add some test cases for the functionality you are fixing (similar to the code in the linked issue).
I don't think it's needed here. With generic constraints: if it compiles, it works. The lower the better. Is there something I can/should do about the canceled CI builds? |
I agree there's no need for tests on this and its best to relax generic constraints as much as possible in rust. No idea what CI is doing. @notmandatory any ideas? |
It is not needed anymore. Discovered in bitcoindevkit#1344
To be fair I'm not sure why the CI is failing only in this PR, while others are passing (maybe it's just that other PRs aren't touching the bdk code, and the CI cache is ✨ caching ✨ it?) Anyways, I opened #1357 to fix, once that's merged, can you rebase please? |
d48f970
to
2efa299
Compare
Rebased on top of #1357, so let's see if that fixes CI. |
#1357 is merged and it looks like all tests are now passing. |
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 2efa299
Closes #1312