Skip to content

refactor(client)!: use bitreq for both BlockingClient and AsyncClient#137

Draft
oleonardolima wants to merge 2 commits intobitcoindevkit:masterfrom
oleonardolima:feat/add-new-minireq-client
Draft

refactor(client)!: use bitreq for both BlockingClient and AsyncClient#137
oleonardolima wants to merge 2 commits intobitcoindevkit:masterfrom
oleonardolima:feat/add-new-minireq-client

Conversation

@oleonardolima
Copy link
Collaborator

@oleonardolima oleonardolima commented Oct 21, 2025

No description provided.

@oleonardolima oleonardolima force-pushed the feat/add-new-minireq-client branch from 293c886 to 7d21272 Compare October 21, 2025 21:43
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Oct 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18927210446

Details

  • 8 of 9 (88.89%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 87.216%
Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/blocking.rs 7 8 87.5%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 18851490484: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 1037
Relevant Lines: 1189
💛 - Coveralls

@oleonardolima oleonardolima force-pushed the feat/add-new-minireq-client branch 3 times, most recently from c03e04f to fd63f37 Compare October 21, 2025 21:59
@oleonardolima oleonardolima self-assigned this Oct 21, 2025
@oleonardolima oleonardolima force-pushed the feat/add-new-minireq-client branch from fd63f37 to 4b0dbd0 Compare October 21, 2025 22:04
@oleonardolima oleonardolima force-pushed the feat/add-new-minireq-client branch 2 times, most recently from 6ba4aad to 5b989db Compare October 30, 2025 01:42
@oleonardolima oleonardolima mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2025
Merged
@oleonardolima oleonardolima changed the title wip(feat(minireq)): add minireq/bitreq HTTP client blocking support wip(feat(bitreq)): switch from minreq/reqwest to bitreq HTTP client Nov 19, 2025
@oleonardolima oleonardolima added enhancement New feature or request summit labels Nov 19, 2025
@oleonardolima oleonardolima moved this to In Progress in BDK Chain Nov 19, 2025
@arminsabouri arminsabouri mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2025
Draft
@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Feb 10, 2026

@oleonardolima Any update here? The rust-esplora-client might be the last thing that keeps reqwest (and sub-dependencies) in our tree. If you don't have time to finish this, should I take this one over?

@oleonardolima
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oleonardolima commented Feb 10, 2026

@oleonardolima Any update here? The rust-esplora-client might be the last thing that keeps reqwest (and sub-dependencies) in our tree. If you don't have time to finish this, should I take this one over?

@tnull I didn't follow the recent changes for the latest bitreq release, do you deem it production-ready and with the feature-parity that we need from reqwest here ?

@tnull
Copy link
Contributor

tnull commented Feb 11, 2026 •
edited
Loading

@oleonardolima Any update here? The rust-esplora-client might be the last thing that keeps reqwest (and sub-dependencies) in our tree. If you don't have time to finish this, should I take this one over?

@tnull I didn't follow the recent changes for the latest bitreq release, do you deem it production-ready and with the feature-parity that we need from reqwest here ?

Yes, we made good progress there (full/fixed async support, added a Url type for parsing, superseding url::Url, etc). Also replaced other HTTP clients in a bunch of places (LDK Node, LDK, alpenlabs/bitcoind-async-client etc). So would be great to move forward with this here, too!

@oleonardolima oleonardolima mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2026
Open
11 tasks
@oleonardolima oleonardolima force-pushed the feat/add-new-minireq-client branch 5 times, most recently from 26dfb35 to e9d41e0 Compare February 24, 2026 13:58
@oleonardolima
refactor(client)!: use bitreq for BlockingClient
476fae4 
- update the `BlockingClient` to use `bitreq` instead of `minreq`
@oleonardolima
refactor(client)!: use bitreq for AsyncClient
1337d8e 
- update the `AsyncClient` to use `bitreq` instead of `reqwest`
@oleonardolima oleonardolima force-pushed the feat/add-new-minireq-client branch from e9d41e0 to 1337d8e Compare February 24, 2026 14:03
@oleonardolima oleonardolima changed the title wip(feat(bitreq)): switch from minreq/reqwest to bitreq HTTP client refactor(client)!: use bitreq for both BlockingClient and AsyncClient Feb 24, 2026
@oleonardolima
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oleonardolima commented Feb 24, 2026 •
edited
Loading

@tnull I did an initial shot on this one, it's pretty straight-forward so far. However, there's still some API changes I'd like to do, mainly trying to unify it into a single client. Also, I didn't throughly tested it yet, specially in wasm environments.

Also, I'm wondering if it'd be best to wait for the ClientBuilder on bitreq, it's not a blocker though.

tnull
tnull reviewed Feb 24, 2026
View reviewed changes
src/blocking.rs
/// Perform a raw HTTP GET request with the given URI `path`.
pub fn get_request(&self, path: &str) -> Result<Request, Error> {
let mut request = minreq::get(format!("{}{}", self.url, path));
let mut request = bitreq::get(format!("{}{}", self.url, path));
Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull Feb 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, it's kind of unfortunate we don't have a Client for the blocking variant, as this means we'll establish a new connection for each request. Maybe we might first need to add it? I can give it a shot in some time this week, so this would be unblocked?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@oleonardolima oleonardolima Feb 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that'd be a good improvement.

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull Feb 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

rust-bitcoin/corepc#518

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@notmandatory notmandatory Awaiting requested review from notmandatory

@ValuedMammal ValuedMammal Awaiting requested review from ValuedMammal

@luisschwab luisschwab Awaiting requested review from luisschwab luisschwab is a code owner

1 more reviewer

@tnull tnull tnull left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@oleonardolima oleonardolima

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

BDK Chain
Status: In Progress

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@oleonardolima @coveralls @tnull @ValuedMammal