Skip to content
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

Check if any of the cryptographicIdentity util methods are equivalent #486

Closed
2 tasks done
danwt opened this issue Nov 16, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

Check if any of the cryptographicIdentity util methods are equivalent #486

danwt opened this issue Nov 16, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
scope: docs Improvements or additions to documentation scope: testing Code review, testing, making sure the code is following the specification. type: feature-request New feature or request improvement

Comments

@danwt
Copy link
Contributor

danwt commented Nov 16, 2022

Problem

When writing any code involving keys or addresses it is hard to know the exact meanings of each type required in a method signature. The cryptographic utilities implement helpers to get those types. Some of those types may refer to the same thing.

Closing criteria

Check if any of the return values from the crypto identity methods are equivalent, and if they are, document them as such

https://github.com/cosmos/interchain-security/blob/main/testutil/crypto/crypto.go

TODOs

  • Labels have been added for issue
  • Issue has been added to the ICS project
@danwt danwt added scope: docs Improvements or additions to documentation type: feature-request New feature or request improvement scope: testing Code review, testing, making sure the code is following the specification. labels Nov 16, 2022
@danwt danwt moved this to Todo in Replicated Security Nov 16, 2022
@shaspitz
Copy link
Contributor

shaspitz commented Nov 17, 2022

My hunch is that some of the utils do return equivalents. At least, I was able to use multiple different methods without tests failing when making a first pass at #473. The new util file is still a huuuuge improvement from before 🙏

@shaspitz
Copy link
Contributor

Note that #473 was closed because it got too behind. A future PR could use that PR as inspiration but use the utils correctly, maybe fix this issue in the same PR

@danwt
Copy link
Contributor Author

danwt commented Dec 14, 2022

Note, this issue is related to #572

@sainoe sainoe mentioned this issue Jan 18, 2023
2 tasks
@mpoke
Copy link
Contributor

mpoke commented Jan 18, 2023

@danwt does #672 address this issue?

@danwt
Copy link
Contributor Author

danwt commented Jan 18, 2023

Will be superseded by pending solution to #572

@danwt danwt closed this as completed Jan 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
scope: docs Improvements or additions to documentation scope: testing Code review, testing, making sure the code is following the specification. type: feature-request New feature or request improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants