-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for revoking ecdsa keys without --key-path #8725
Conversation
Thanks for the PR @atombrella. Let me know when this is ready for review. |
39a4dfe
to
539e640
Compare
I'm trying to add more tests. Integration test is there with a template, and probably a few more should be added, e.g., cli test? |
46e6f5c
to
2ba77f3
Compare
@bmw I believe this is ready for review. I'm not sure about what other tests could be needed, though. I'm tempted to squash commits, so |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the ping @atombrella. This dropped off my radar somehow.
I'm personally satisfied with testing here since the modified code has 100% test coverage and you added an integration test for the problem. If there's something else you'd like to test for but you're not sure the best way to do it, let me know and I can try to help.
I think we should probably structure the fix differently though. acme.client.ClientNetwork takes an alg
parameter specifying the algorithm that should be used in signing JWS. The patch from #8569 ignores this attribute and instead determines the algorithm from the key type in this specific method.
I personally think we should instead do something like one of:
- Fix where
acme.client.ClientNetwork
is created in Certbot so the rightalg
parameter is provided in this case. - Keeping in mind that
acme.client.ClientNetwork
is part of our public API, we could maybe deprecate thealg
parameter and always determine the algorithm based on the key type.
What do you think? Do you have any other ideas?
If you make this change, I think you can drop commonism's commit from this PR since we'd be taking a different approach and not using that commit at all.
@atombrella, do you have the time and interest to respond to my review comments here or would you like someone else to take over this work? |
Yes. Sorry, I got caught up with other stuff :) |
I found this comment:
Yeah, makes sense. |
No worries! Thanks for the update and your continued interest here. |
d6a172c
to
3ae4419
Compare
3ae4419
to
44d2481
Compare
44d2481
to
fd1dd37
Compare
e39bb41
to
231f5a3
Compare
@bmw I think the feedback has been addressed to add the parameter into where |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't quite do a full review here, but I wrote up some suggestions inline.
See GitHub issue certbot#8569 for details. Co-Authored-By: commonism <[email protected]>
bc87f67
to
73b4463
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
See GitHub issue #8569 for details.
Co-Authored-By: commonism [email protected]
In my local setup, it's using josepy 1.6.0, and not 1.7.0 (or 1.8). I think some more tests could be written.
Pull Request Checklist
master
section ofcertbot/CHANGELOG.md
to include a description of the change being made.AUTHORS.md
if you like.