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

private mbedtls in communications library #940

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 14, 2016
Merged

Conversation

m-mcgowan
Copy link
Contributor

@m-mcgowan m-mcgowan commented Apr 6, 2016

the mbedtls headers are private to the communications module so applications can include their own version of mbedtls


Doneness:

  • Contributor has signed CLA
  • Problem and Solution clearly stated
  • Code peer reviewed
  • API tests compiled
  • Run unit/integration/application tests on device
  • Add documentation
  • Add to CHANGELOG.md after merging (add links to docs and issues)

…cations can include their own version of mbedtls
@m-mcgowan m-mcgowan added this to the 0.5.x milestone Apr 6, 2016
@m-mcgowan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Testing (mdma):

  • compile system firmware and verify Electron can connect to the cloud.

@technobly technobly self-assigned this Apr 14, 2016
@technobly
Copy link
Member

@m-mcgowan wiring/no_fixture tests pass on Electron U260 as well as connecting and restoring sessions with the tinker usb debugging v0.4.8-rc.6 app.

@technobly technobly removed their assignment Apr 14, 2016
@technobly
Copy link
Member

It might be nice to add some kind of bare minimum example to the Docs of what someone can do with this now in User firmware.

@technobly technobly merged commit 54eb38f into develop Apr 14, 2016
@m-mcgowan
Copy link
Contributor Author

m-mcgowan commented Apr 14, 2016

That's not quite how it is - it's not in user firmware, it's still in system firmware, but private - the changes allows developers to include their own copy of mbedtls in user firmware without conflicts from the system copy.

@technobly
Copy link
Member

Oh is that kind of beyond the scope of our Docs? They would have to acquire a copy of mbedtls, and can't duplicate anything used in our stack?

@rayjanwilson
Copy link

When we include our own, this allows us to push data to services like AWS that require an SSL/TLS connection? Essentially bypassing webhooks?

@m-mcgowan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rayjanwilson, yes potentially.

@technobly technobly deleted the feature/private_mbedtls branch October 27, 2016 17:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants