feat(client): add new `submit_package` api to blocking/async client by acidbunny21 · Pull Request #114 · bitcoindevkit/rust-esplora-client

acidbunny21 · 2025-01-22T08:58:15Z

Description

Add new submit_package method to both BlockingClient and AsyncClient, as it's now supported by Esplora API, see: Blockstream/electrs#119, Blockstream/electrs#159. Also, adds new SubmitPackageResult, TxResult, and MempoolFeesSubmitPackage API structures.

It updates the internal post_request_hex method to post_request_bytes, now handling query_params and having Response as return type. Additionally, updates the internals of broadcast to utilize the new post_request and post_request_bytes without breaking its API.

Notes to the reviewers

As mentioned in the PR comments, I updated the original commit by @acidbunny21 by:

(i) adding @ValuedMammal's suggested fixes;
(ii) removing the breaking change on the broadcast API, it's now a follow-up in feat(client)!: update broadcast API #151.

Changelog notice

### Added

- feat(client): add new `submit_package` API to `BlockingClient` and `AsyncClient`
- feat(api): add new `SubmitPackageResult`, `TxResult`, and `MempoolFeesSubmitPackage` API structures

### Changed

- feat(client): update the `post_request_hex` method to `post_request_bytes`, now handling `query_params` and having `Response` as return type.
- feat(client): update the internals of the  `broadcast` method to use new `post_request` and `post_request_bytes`, with no breaking change.

Checklists

All Submissions:

I've signed all my commits
I followed the contribution guidelines
I ran just p before pushing

New Features:

I've added tests for the new feature

The PR does not add new tests for the submit_package API, as it's not yet supported by electrsd, it's tracked by: #152

I've added docs for the new feature

src/api.rs

src/async.rs

src/blocking.rs

stevenroose

looks good, let just some nits. can confirm that the calls match the endpoint added in my pr on esplora (Blockstream/electrs#119)

src/blocking.rs

coveralls · 2025-01-27T14:07:43Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20722592690

Details

32 of 102 (31.37%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
8 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
Overall coverage decreased (-4.0%) to 86.65%

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/api.rs	0	12	0.0%
src/async.rs	14	43	32.56%
src/blocking.rs	18	47	38.3%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/async.rs	1	76.44%
src/blocking.rs	7	76.11%

Totals
Change from base Build 20722132454:	-4.0%
Covered Lines:	1402
Relevant Lines:	1618

💛 - Coveralls

Cargo.toml

src/api.rs

src/async.rs

tnull · 2025-01-29T11:26:02Z

src/api.rs

+pub struct SubmitPackageResult {
+    /// The transaction package result message. "success" indicates all transactions were accepted
+    /// into or are already in the mempool.
+    pub package_msg: String,


Do we know if the variants here are finite? Do we see a chance to parse this into an enum?

Agreed, that'd be best.

i agree that would be best, but as I can see here, there is no enum defined for that field. I'd be happy to update that part as soon as it is upgraded to one there

oleonardolima

It could use a test with mempool/electrs implementation, while it's not available in blockstream/electrs and electrsd, as I've looked on the other PR and looks like it's following the same API.

src/api.rs

oleonardolima · 2025-02-03T03:13:21Z

src/api.rs

+pub struct SubmitPackageResult {
+    /// The transaction package result message. "success" indicates all transactions were accepted
+    /// into or are already in the mempool.
+    pub package_msg: String,


Agreed, that'd be best.

acidbunny21 · 2025-02-03T15:23:03Z

It could use a test with mempool/electrs implementation, while it's not available in blockstream/electrs and electrsd, as I've looked on the other PR and looks like it's following the same API.

I'm okay with adding a test, but then we need to bump electrsd to 0.30 which introduce some breaking changes on bitcoind. Might be good to first bump it in a separated PR

src/async.rs

oleonardolima · 2025-02-10T16:28:20Z

It could use a test with mempool/electrs implementation, while it's not available in blockstream/electrs and electrsd, as I've looked on the other PR and looks like it's following the same API.

I'm okay with adding a test, but then we need to bump electrsd to 0.30 which introduce some breaking changes on bitcoind. Might be good to first bump it in a separated PR

Yes, agree that it can be done in another PR. Another way that I thought was adding a test (under #[ignore]) that uses live mempool.space to test it, so we could run locally and in another step on CI while we don't have a new release on electrsd with the blockstream's esplora changes. However I think it's better to just wait until Blockstream/electrs#119 is release and just bump everything.

acidbunny21 · 2025-02-21T17:36:10Z

@oleonardolima it looks like the pipeline failures are caused by something unrelated with the PR, could you help please? :)

oleonardolima · 2025-02-26T18:42:12Z

@oleonardolima it looks like the pipeline failures are caused by something unrelated with the PR, could you help please? :)

It's caused due to recent native-tls release which bumped their MSRV to 1.80.0, it should be fine after #116 lands and a rebase should fix it.

stevenroose · 2025-03-18T11:30:35Z

I think we uncovered a bug in here:

Reqwest(reqwest::Error { kind: Decode, source: Error("invalid type: floating point `0.0`, expected u64", line: 1, column: 230) })

I suspect it's in this field: pub base: Amount,. You should never use Amount's default deserialization. It has several options, but bitcoind does amounts as floating points:

#[serde(with = "amount::serde::as_btc")]
pub base: Amount,

the above should work

oleonardolima · 2025-08-20T19:05:36Z

@acidbunny21 Could you rebase and sign the commits on this one?

tnull

This needs a cargo fmt it seems

src/async.rs

oleonardolima

tACK 7992b34

I've updated the example_wallet_esplora_blocking to build a zero-fee txA (v3), assert that it failed to relay due to expected: min relay fee not met, and did a CPFP with txB (v3) for the output and successfully submitted it as a package through the new API.

I've tested it for:

mempool.space API: I used testnet4 for syncing and submitting the package, see txA, and txB.
blockstream.info API: I used testnet3 (as testnet4 is not supported), though I had to use the mempool.space for syncing (due to blockstream rate limit issues), and only used blockstream.info API to try to broadcast the zero-fee and the submit package API, see txA and txB.

oleonardolima · 2025-12-19T13:33:08Z

src/async.rs

+    pub async fn broadcast(&self, transaction: &Transaction) -> Result<Txid, Error> {
+        let body = serialize::<Transaction>(transaction).to_lower_hex_string();
+        let response = self.post_request_bytes("/tx", body, None).await?;
+        let txid = Txid::from_str(&response.text().await?).map_err(|_| Error::InvalidResponse)?;
+        Ok(txid)
+    }


I just noticed that landing this PR has a breaking change, due to this change here and in the blocking client.

@tnull Do you need the submit_package API as a non-breaking release?

@tnull Do you need the submit_package API as a non-breaking release?

No, making this a minor release would totally be fine for us!

oleonardolima · 2025-12-19T13:41:56Z

I've squashed all changes into a single patch as they touched the same files, now d9f3868

oleonardolima · 2025-12-19T18:43:48Z

I removed the breaking change on broadcast API in 970ea94, it'll be addressed by another PR #151 and by a future release.

src/blocking.rs

src/async.rs

ValuedMammal · 2025-12-19T19:35:43Z

ACK 970ea94

luisschwab

ACK f7fbaa4

477cf8a fix(ci): pin `proc-macro2` to MSRV supported `1.0.103` (Leonardo Lima) f857d40 fix(ci): pin `ryu` to MSRV supported `1.0.20` (Leonardo Lima) 8422454 fix(ci): pin `serde_json` to MSRV supported `1.0.145` (Leonardo Lima) f31ba50 fix(ci): pin `itoa` to MSRV supported `1.0.15` (Leonardo Lima) edac624 fix(ci): bump pinned `webpki-roots` to 1.0.5 (Leonardo Lima) Pull request description: I was about to merge #114, but there's been a new release (i.e [v1.0.5](https://crates.io/crates/webpki-roots/versions)) for `webpki-roots` which breaks our MSRV CI. This PR updates its pinned version to fix our MSRV CI jobs, so we can move forward with #114. ACKs for top commit: luisschwab: ACK 477cf8a ValuedMammal: ACK 477cf8a Tree-SHA512: c93f83c84072865cf8d14ecca98efdadfa99dc7143d9917fa4d00cbeb6fdeff329ca22d4814498be2ed9d15ab6f40b6f6f441a2c7a43d91d618a6acb875dfbc0

- adds new `submit_package` API to `AsyncClient` and `BlockingClient`, it has been added to esplora by `Blockstream/electrs#159`. - adds new `SubmitPackageResult`, `TxResult` and `MempoolFeesSubmitPackage` API structures. - changes the `post_request_hex` method to `post_request_bytes`, now handling `query_params` and having `Response` as return type. - updates the internals of `broadcast` to use new `post_request` and `post_request_bytes`, without breaking it's API.

luisschwab

re-ACK cf64f97

oleonardolima · 2026-01-05T17:44:15Z

As @ValuedMammal reviews it, I'll merge this one. I rebased it on top of master, so it has the latest CI fixes in cf64f97.

I'll add some error handling improvements I noticed in a follow-up.

ValuedMammal · 2026-01-05T17:59:10Z

ACK cf64f97; used git range-diff

ErikDeSmedt suggested changes Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/api.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/api.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

stevenroose reviewed Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/blocking.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 2 times, most recently from 6a22216 to 01fb9c9 Compare January 23, 2025 13:41

oleonardolima assigned acidbunny21 Jan 27, 2025

oleonardolima added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 27, 2025

tnull reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/api.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 01fb9c9 to a5322c6 Compare January 29, 2025 08:34

tnull reviewed Jan 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

oleonardolima reviewed Feb 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

oleonardolima mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2025

deps(blockstream/electrs): bump blockstream/electrs to latest under a new feature RCasatta/electrsd#93

Open

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from a5322c6 to 6147e74 Compare February 7, 2025 04:40

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 2 times, most recently from c50be44 to 7886297 Compare March 1, 2025 07:45

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 2 times, most recently from cb707fb to c0ed77e Compare March 18, 2025 17:25

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from c0ed77e to 1f1fa23 Compare April 23, 2025 11:35

notmandatory added this to BDK Chain Apr 23, 2025

oleonardolima moved this to Needs Review in BDK Chain Aug 20, 2025

acidbunny21 force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 1f1fa23 to 4719808 Compare August 23, 2025 06:50

tnull reviewed Sep 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

ValuedMammal reviewed Sep 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/async.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

luisschwab mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025

chore(docs): add missing documentation #147

Merged

luisschwab assigned oleonardolima Dec 18, 2025

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch 3 times, most recently from 7ab7dc3 to 7992b34 Compare December 18, 2025 19:55

oleonardolima reviewed Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 7992b34 to d9f3868 Compare December 19, 2025 13:40

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from d9f3868 to 970ea94 Compare December 19, 2025 18:26

oleonardolima requested review from ErikDeSmedt, luisschwab and tnull December 19, 2025 18:44

luisschwab suggested changes Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from 970ea94 to f7fbaa4 Compare December 19, 2025 19:42

luisschwab approved these changes Dec 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Jan 4, 2026

fix(ci): bump pinned webpki-roots to 1.0.5 #153

Merged

chore(release): esplora-client v0.12.2 #155

Closed

oleonardolima force-pushed the submit-tx-pkg-clients branch from f7fbaa4 to cf64f97 Compare January 5, 2026 16:52

luisschwab approved these changes Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

luisschwab requested a review from ValuedMammal January 5, 2026 17:22

oleonardolima changed the title ~~feat(client): add async and blocking clients to submit txs package~~ feat(client): add new submit_package api to blocking/async client Jan 5, 2026

oleonardolima merged commit e0f7985 into bitcoindevkit:master Jan 5, 2026
26 checks passed

github-project-automation bot moved this from Needs Review to Done in BDK Chain Jan 5, 2026

Conversation

acidbunny21 commented Jan 22, 2025 • edited by oleonardolima Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Notes to the reviewers

Changelog notice

Checklists

All Submissions:

New Features:

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stevenroose left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jan 27, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20722592690

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tnull Jan 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oleonardolima Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oleonardolima left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima Feb 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Feb 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Feb 10, 2025

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Feb 26, 2025

Uh oh!

stevenroose commented Mar 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oleonardolima left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oleonardolima Dec 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tnull Dec 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

oleonardolima commented Dec 19, 2025

Uh oh!

acidbunny21 commented Jan 22, 2025 •

edited by oleonardolima

Loading

coveralls commented Jan 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading

tnull Jan 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

stevenroose commented Mar 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

oleonardolima left a comment •

edited

Loading

oleonardolima commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading