Repository navigation
Migrate transaction building from TxBuilder to Wallet::create_psbt #338
Description
The plan is to transition bdk_wallet to depreciate TxBuilder and use bdk_tx via Wallet::create_psbt (see bitcoindevkit/bdk_wallet#516). So I'd suggest adding the check to bdk-tx and updating bdk-cli to enable the Wallet::create_psbt experimental feature and using it. But that all will need to be done in new PRs.
Originally posted by @notmandatory in #326 (comment)
This issue is about moving bdk-cli to Wallet::create_psbt from bdk_wallet 3.2.0. The tx size check discussed in the same thread is out of scope here.
bdk-cli is on bdk_wallet 3.1.0 and builds every transaction with TxBuilder. Wallet::create_psbt is available in 3.2.0, behind the bdk-tx feature and the --cfg bdk_wallet_unstable rustflag.
Call sites to migrate:
CreateTxCommandinsrc/handlers/offline.rsCreateSpTxCommandinsrc/handlers/offline.rsBumpFeeCommandinsrc/handlers/offline.rs, the only one usingbuild_fee_bumpCreateDnsTxCommandinsrc/handlers/dns/mod.rsPayjoinManager::send_payjoininsrc/handlers/payjoin/mod.rs
Notes:
Wallet::replace_by_feeis the counterpart forbump_fee.- The bump also hits deprecations outside tx building, which
-D warningsin CI turns into blockers:Wallet::sign,Wallet::get_signers,Wallet::policies,TxBuilder::policy_pathandLoadParams::extract_keys. - The bump alone already breaks
just pre-push: every test that signs a PSBT fails withSigner error: Missing non-witness UTXO, to be sorted out as part of this work.
Activity
h4vismat commentedon Oct 14, 2026
Hello, I'd like to work on this issue. Can I pick this up?
vadim-anfv commentedon Oct 14, 2026
Hi @h4vismat!
In general, you don't need to ask - feel free to pick up an issue if:
All of the above applies here, so go ahead!
tvpeter commentedon Oct 14, 2026
While all the above conditions are applicable, the PR will touch a large part of the codebase, so I would prefer an existing contributor to work on this issue.
Thank you @h4vismat for showing interest in the issue.
h4vismat commentedon Oct 14, 2026
Well, if you guys agree I can start working on the issue and afterwards ask for a review. However, if you think an existing contributor should take this, I will see if I can take up another issue, okay?
vadim-anfv commentedon Oct 15, 2026
@h4vismat my bad, I mixed this issue up with a different one when I replied. Looking at it again I agree with @tvpeter: this one touches a large part of the codebase and is not a good first contribution here. Sorry for the back and forth.
The checklist itself still holds as general guidance for picking up issues in this repo, so feel free to use it. I just applied it to the wrong issue.