Drop last bits of rescan as its too complicated to be worth having

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.

[TheBlueMatt]

Previously, we had a concept of "rescaning" blocks when we detected
a need to monitor for a new set of outputs in future blocks while
connecting a block. In such cases, we'd need to possibly learn about
these new spends later in the same block, requiring clients who
filter blocks to get a newly-filtered copy of the same block. While
redoing the chain access API, it became increasingly clear this was
an overly complicated API feature, and it seems likely most clients
will not use it anyway.

Further, any client who does filter blocks can simply update their
filtering algorithm to include any descendants of matched
transactions in the filter results, avoiding the need for rescan
support entirely.

Thus, it was decided that we'd move forward without rescan support
in #649, however to avoid significant further changes in the
already-large 649, we decided to fully remove support in a
follow-up.

Here, we remove the API features that existed for rescan and fix
the few tests to not rely on it.

After this commit, we now only ever have one possible version of
block connection transactions, making it possible to be
significantly more confident in our test coverage actually
capturing all realistic scenarios.

I'd also started down the path of enforcing in-order block connections/disconnections, but our tests end up using all kinds of crazy chain setups which make this impractical to do in short order.

[jkczyz]

Much simpler than I had imagined. Thanks for handling this follow-up!

[ariard]

Post-merge Code Review ACK 2bd571d

[TheBlueMatt]

Post-Merge review is best (ok, only almost, but still) review.