feat(wallet): remove multi mint wallet #1582

2026-01-28T07:37:03Z

asmogo commented

2026-01-28 07:37:03 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Description

Notes to the reviewers

Suggested CHANGELOG Updates

CHANGED

ADDED

REMOVED

FIXED

Checklist

I followed the code style guidelines
I ran just final-check before committing

### Description  ----- ### Notes to the reviewers  ----- ### Suggested [CHANGELOG](https://github.com/cashubtc/cdk/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) Updates  #### CHANGED #### ADDED #### REMOVED #### FIXED ---- ### Checklist * [ ] I followed the [code style guidelines](https://github.com/cashubtc/cdk/blob/main/CODE_STYLE.md) * [ ] I ran `just final-check` before committing

thesimplekid (Migrated from github.com) requested changes

2026-02-09 14:55:53 +00:00

crates/cdk/src/wallet/wallet_repository.rs

					
				@ -0,0 +1,970 @@

				//! Wallet Repository

This could sum different units since it just takes the value of the get_balances BTreeMap without checking the unit. It could return a BTreeMap of <Unit, Amount>?

This could sum different units since it just takes the value of the `get_balances` BTreeMap without checking the unit. It could return a BTreeMap of <Unit, Amount>?

Are these actually used, I do not see where they are?

We should remove the multiple news and instead use a builder pattern like we do in other places.

Would it be safer to not remove the wallet from the db? I think having this case of it sometimes removes from the db isn't safe and that should be explicit.

There is some inconsistency with the naming of the API in a few places we use add_mint but then to get the wallet we say get_wallet. I think we should align this and it should be add_wallet.

There is some inconsistency with the naming of the API in a few places we use `add_mint` but then to get the wallet we say `get_wallet`. I think we should align this and it should be `add_wallet`.

Should we remove this and just force the caller to be explicit about if they are getting a wallet or creating one. In cdk-cli we already have an additional wrapper of a fn by the same name that does this, I think it makes more sense to be done like that.