Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat: support detached payloads in COSESign and COSESign1 #197
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: support detached payloads in COSESign and COSESign1 #197
Changes from all commits
fa0344c
9a459d1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Do we really need
?
Can
Sign1Detached
be implemented as?
Same question for
SignDetached
.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.
Seems fussy to me, would making detached the base case and calling from
Sign1
be ok? Saves unsetting the payload on the detached object.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.
IMO yes. @shizhMSFT wdyt?
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.
@shizhMSFT, I believe this is the blocking issue on this PR. Can we consider refactoring the implementation, either in this PR, or a separate PR? Either way, can we come to some conclusion here to move forward?
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.
@alex-richards Are you suggesting
That refactoring works for me.
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.
@alex-richards, @shizhMSFT
Can this comment be resoled?
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.
@SteveLasker I think it will be better if we gather more inputs from other maintainers.
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.
Disclaimer: I am very much a random passerby, nudged to look at this. I do spend a lot time with COSE, in languages other than Go.
The refactoring proposed by @shizhMSFT seems quite reasonable to me, and results in a slightly cleaner API in my opinion.
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.
Ping on this change for closure...