Skip to content
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

Use Bisq's UserThread.executor in gRPC server #4936

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

ghubstan
Copy link
Contributor

This is the 6th in a chain of PRs beginning with #4884.
PR #4925 should be reviewed before this one.

BtcWalletService was changed to allow the api to override tx fee
rates from the sendbsq and sendbtc methods.  The api methods will
still be able to use the network fee service and custom tx fee rate
preference, and set / unset the custom tx fee rate preference, but
the change will permit the addition of an optional txFeeRate parameter
to the sendbsq and sendbtc methods (todo).  A few other minor changes
(style and removal of never thrown ex spec) were also made to this class.

Two BtcWalletService methods were refactored.

- The redundant (was always true) boolean isSendTx argument was removed
  from the completePreparedVoteRevealTx method signature.

- The redundant (was always true) boolean useCustomTxFee was removed
  from the completePreparedBsqTx method signature.

- The completePreparedSendBsqTx method was overloaded with a 2nd parameter
  (Coin txFeePerVbyte) to allow api to override fee service and custom
  tx fee rate when sending BSQ or BTC.

- The completePreparedBsqTx method was overloaded with a 3rd parameter
  (Coin txFeePerVbyte) to allow api to override fee service and custom
  tx fee rate when sending BSQ or BTC.

The following line was deleted from the completePreparedBsqTx method
because txFeePerVbyte is now an argument:

	Coin txFeePerVbyte = useCustomTxFee ? getTxFeeForWithdrawalPerVbyte() : feeService.getTxFeePerVbyte();

This useCustomTxFee value was always true, and redudant here because
getTxFeeForWithdrawalPerVbyte() returns feeService.getTxFeePerVbyte()
or the custom fee rate preference. i.e.,

Coin txFeePerVbyte = useCustomTxFee ? getTxFeeForWithdrawalPerVbyte() : feeService.getTxFeePerVbyte();

	is equivalent to

Coin txFeePerVbyte = getTxFeeForWithdrawalPerVbyte();

LockupTxService, UnlockTxService, BsqSendView, and BsqTransferService
were adjusted to this BtcWalletService refactoring.
If present in the sendbsq command, the parameter will override the fee
service and custom fee rate setting for the BSQ transaction.

Also changed the sendbsq grpc return type to a lightweight TX proto wrapper.

Besides some small refactoring in the CLI, all the changes are
adjustments for this new sendbsq parameter and its new grpc return value.
Takes an address, amount, and optional txfeerate param,
returns a lightweight TxInfo proto.

Also overloaded two BtcWalletService methods to allow sendbtc
to pass in the tx fee rate -- overriding the fee service and
custom fee rate setting.
- Added optional memo parameter to the api's sendbtc and
  withdrawfunds commands.

- Removed the @nullable annotation was removed because protobuf
  does not support null.

- Visibility in two wallet check methods were changed from private
  to pkg protected so the CoreTradeService could use them.

- Adjusted affected tests.  (Asserting the memo field was set on a
  transaction cannot be checked from apitest yet.)
@ghubstan
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll move this from draft status after some testing.

@ghubstan ghubstan changed the title [WIP] Use Bisq's UserThread.executor in gRPC server Use Bisq's UserThread.executor in gRPC server Dec 11, 2020
@ghubstan ghubstan marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2020 22:53
As per commit 88f26f9,
do not autofill all currencies by default but keep all unselected.
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@ghubstan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Review and merged with #4966.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants