feat: bump bdk_wallet to 3.1.0 by reez · Pull Request #1030 · bitcoindevkit/bdk-ffi

reez · 2026-06-16T15:51:15Z

Description

Dependency bump. The other commits are more experimental to see the shape of exposing new APIs.

Notes to the reviewers

Documentation

Changelog

Checklists

All Submissions:

I've signed all my commits
I followed the contribution guidelines
I ran cargo fmt and cargo clippy before committing
I've added exactly one changelog:* label
I've linked the relevant upstream docs or specs above

New Features:

I've added tests for the new feature
I've added docs for the new feature

Bugfixes:

This pull request breaks the existing API
I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR

thunderbiscuit

This will take some time to review, but I'm adding some questions here!

thunderbiscuit · 2026-06-24T18:23:07Z

+    /// Also looks at the corresponding descriptor to determine the `SignerContext` to attach to
+    /// the signers.
+    #[uniffi::constructor]
+    pub fn from_descriptor_with_context(


I'd like to make sure I understand well the use case(s) for this constructor. Can we add a test showcasing this?

thunderbiscuit · 2026-06-24T18:23:54Z

+
+    /// Returns the number of signers in the container.
+    pub fn len(&self) -> u64 {
+        self.inner.signers().len() as u64


What does this length represent? A reminder to myself to look into it.

thunderbiscuit · 2026-06-25T01:27:47Z

+    /// extracts keys from the provided descriptor while loading.
+    #[uniffi::constructor(default(lookahead = 25))]
+    pub fn load_from_two_path_descriptor(
+        two_path_descriptor: Arc<Descriptor>,


I added a PR on bdk_wallet bitcoindevkit/bdk_wallet#506 to fix the docs on this, and it indeed requires public descriptors to work. We should just pull that in here as well, and fix up the API docs to on the create_from_two_path_descriptor method to also copy what is now in the Rust API docs (old PR of mine too back then).

In our case the failure happens earlier than in the constructor however, since the user can't pass a string to the constructor and passes a full Descriptor type, which simply cannot be built using private+multipath (see our test for this on bdk-jvm here), so the user would never really get to the constuctor in the first place with their private multipath descriptor. Still I'd like to see the docs mention it here if possible (even though my PR 506 is not merged yet).

thunderbiscuit

Added a few more comments. We can keep chewing through this PR one piece at a time and eventually it'll be ready all at once, but I wonder if maybe splitting it would help work + review on all features in parallel. Your call. I feel like some of those commits are ready to merge, some not yet (or at least I have more questions).

thunderbiscuit · 2026-07-01T13:20:14Z

+        persister: Arc<Persister>,
+        lookahead: u32,
+    ) -> Result<Wallet, LoadWithPersistError> {
+        let descriptor = two_path_descriptor.to_string_with_secret();


This line can be removed, as no private constructor can make it this far, and the to_string_with_secret() method doesn't do anything on public descriptors.

thunderbiscuit · 2026-07-01T13:28:54Z

    }

+    /// Get the signers.
+    pub fn get_signers(&self, keychain: KeychainKind) -> Arc<SignersContainer> {


I don't have a strong reason to block exposing a method available on the wallet on the Rust side in the first place, but I'm also not sure what this is useful for, since the goal of sign_with_signers is to create your own signers at that point in time (not get them from your wallet). It's also one of the APIs that's leaving the wallet at some point because the wallet will not own any signers anymore. See bitcoindevkit/bdk_wallet#70.

I'm not against it; just not sure if adding the code surface is worth it yet, let me know what you think.

thunderbiscuit · 2026-07-01T13:42:21Z

+    ///
+    /// Returns true if the PSBT was finalized, or false otherwise.
+    #[uniffi::method(default(sign_options = None))]
+    #[allow(deprecated)]


Is this to pre-emptively silence the warning that will probably come with bitcoindevkit/bdk_wallet#505?

thunderbiscuit · 2026-07-01T13:44:37Z

+        wallet.get_signers(KeychainKind::Internal),
+    ];
+
+    let finalized = wallet.sign_with_signers(psbt, signers, None).unwrap();


This tests that the signers already present in the wallet can sign the transaction, so the sign_with_signers works, but if possible I'd like to also test the more important/new API, the ability to create signers on the fly and sign with them.

reez · 2026-07-01T14:40:58Z

Added a few more comments. We can keep chewing through this PR one piece at a time and eventually it'll be ready all at once, but I wonder if maybe splitting it would help work + review on all features in parallel. Your call. I feel like some of those commits are ready to merge, some not yet (or at least I have more questions).

Yeah definitely something where I can break it out into separate PRs, as a reviewer how would you best like them split out?

My assumption is bdk_wallet bump + foreign UTXO validation fix are ready... then split out:

two-path descriptor load/create docs and params
signer APIs

... but I'd rather do whatever is easiest split for you as a reviewer because it's no sweat on my end to chop it up any way.

thunderbiscuit · 2026-07-01T14:52:29Z

Pretty much agree with your proposed split. I'd maybe do:

bump dep to 3.1.0 + foreign UTXO validation fix is ready
two path descriptor load also ready IMO (given the fixes to the docs and the small line removal I pointed out in one of the review comments)
Signers
Params (it's the one commit I haven't really reviewed yet).

reez · 2026-07-01T16:53:08Z

Pretty much agree with your proposed split. I'd maybe do:

bump dep to 3.1.0 + foreign UTXO validation fix is ready

two path descriptor load also ready IMO (given the fixes to the docs and the small line removal I pointed out in one of the review comments)

Signers

Params (it's the one commit I haven't really reviewed yet).

Cool, will start doing this and also try to bring over the questions/comments for each respectively

reez · 2026-07-01T17:08:33Z

Pretty much agree with your proposed split. I'd maybe do:

bump dep to 3.1.0 + foreign UTXO validation fix is ready

two path descriptor load also ready IMO (given the fixes to the docs and the small line removal I pointed out in one of the review comments)

Signers

Params (it's the one commit I haven't really reviewed yet).

Cool, will start doing this and also try to bring over the questions/comments for each respectively

Ok this Pr now has only bump dep to 3.1.0 + foreign UTXO validation fix is ready

github-project-automation Bot added this to BDK-Bindings Jun 16, 2026

reez linked an issue Jun 16, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Release 3.1.0 #1029

Open

23 tasks

reez added the changelog: changed label Jun 16, 2026

thunderbiscuit reviewed Jun 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

thunderbiscuit reviewed Jun 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

reez marked this pull request as ready for review June 25, 2026 14:49

thunderbiscuit reviewed Jul 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

reez added 2 commits July 1, 2026 12:04

feat: bump bdk_wallet to 3.1.0

a913069

fix: align foreign utxo validation with upstream

bfbe2ab

reez force-pushed the v3.1.0 branch from 40dbc32 to bfbe2ab Compare July 1, 2026 17:07

This was referenced Jul 1, 2026

feat: expose two path descriptor wallet loading #1042

Draft

feat: expose wallet signing with provided signers #1043

Draft

feat: expose Wallet create and load params #1044

Draft

Uh oh!

Conversation

reez commented Jun 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Notes to the reviewers

Documentation

Changelog

Checklists

All Submissions:

New Features:

Bugfixes:

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jun 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jun 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jun 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jul 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jul 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jul 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit Jul 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

reez commented Jul 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

thunderbiscuit commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

reez commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

reez commented Jul 1, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

reez commented Jun 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

reez commented Jul 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading