AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32958: wallet/refactor: Update SignPSBTInput to return util::Expected<void, PSBTError> and remove PSBTError:Ok

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Ava Chow

81/100 · Strong
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32958: wallet/refactor: Update SignPSBTInput to return util::Expected<void, PSBTError> and remove PSBTError:Ok

6cca38e2b92967b3c057407319e39c6aebadd032 refactor: remove unused PSBTError::Ok (kevkevinpal)
3660678b953c7de8c1d2c670296df90649630f5d refactor: SignPSBTInput now uses util:Expected (kevkevinpal)

Pull request description:

### Description
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r2092030045 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31622#discussion_r2092035407

### What this changes
- Updates `SignPSBTInput` to return `util::Expected<void, PSBTError>`
- Removes `PSBTError:Ok` from the `PSBTError` Enum

ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 6cca38e2b92967b3c057407319e39c6aebadd032
rkrux:
lgtm ACK 6cca38e2b92967b3c057407319e39c6aebadd032
jeanpablojp:
tACK 6cca38e2b92967b3c057407319e39c6aebadd032

Tree-SHA512: c83b2e7e440aff01becc788e36a732756085f507d447eaa16dd1276d0d0b54070d0d8a51727d553d214043935072586111a175f34338a8d1886a6d5b251de7e4
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit is a code cleanup (refactor) that changes how a PSBT signing function reports success or failure. It replaces an explicit 'OK' success code with a standard C++ expected-result type. There is no security bug being fixed here; the behavior of the signing logic is unchanged.

Recommended action

No action required. This is a non-security refactor. Treat as routine code maintenance.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.