rust-bitcoin / rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript
We shouldn't implement `AssetProvider` for `T: Satisfier`
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 426
- Forks
- 200
- Avg merge
- 7d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Description
If you have a satisfier, you should just call descriptor.satisfy() with it. There's no reason to call .plan() except if you have some extra knowledge about which keys are available (or not available) and want to save calls to your satisfier.
If you have a T: Satisfier and call descriptor.plan().satisfy() with it, you get the same result as if you'd called descriptor.satisfy() except that you lookup all your signatures twice.
cc @afilini
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Trace the AssetProvider implementation for T: Satisfier and the descriptor.satisfy() and descriptor.plan().satisfy() entry points. Compare their signature lookup behavior and inspect any related tests; done means the redundant implementation or path is removed without changing satisfaction results or causing duplicate lookups.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100