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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Should CryptoKey be marked [Serializable] in IDL? #222

Closed
bzbarsky opened this issue Jun 23, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #259
Closed

Should CryptoKey be marked [Serializable] in IDL? #222

bzbarsky opened this issue Jun 23, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #259
Labels
ErratumRaised Raised to become an Errata later

Comments

@bzbarsky
Copy link

Should IndexedDB be able to store CryptoKey values? As I understand, that needs a [Serializable] annotation on the interface to work nowadays...

@annevk @domenic @bakulf
@domenic
Copy link

domenic commented Jun 23, 2019

I remember this being discussed when we changed the structured clone infrastructure. I cannot find the issue, but my recollection is that at the time web crypto was an un-updatable Rec, and the serialization changes got the conversation started on how to provide maintenance for it. I think those conversations may have resolved by now, but we never followed through on updating the web crypto spec.

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Jun 23, 2019

#181 has that discussion, but it got closed without follow-up.

moz-v2v-gh pushed a commit to mozilla/gecko-dev that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2019
@bzbarsky
Bug 1350254 part 8. Switch CryptoKey to [Serializable]. r=baku
4b183f7 
The spec doesn't say to do this, but I think we should.  See
w3c/webcrypto#222

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D35722

--HG--
extra : moz-landing-system : lando
dbaron pushed a commit to dbaron/gecko that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2019
@bzbarsky
Bug 1350254 part 8. Switch CryptoKey to [Serializable]. r=baku
4d1acdc 
The spec doesn't say to do this, but I think we should.  See
w3c/webcrypto#222

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D35722
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-comments-removed that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2019
@marco-c
Bug 1350254 part 8. Switch CryptoKey to [Serializable]. r=baku
7a8fad1 
The spec doesn't say to do this, but I think we should.  See
w3c/webcrypto#222

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D35722

UltraBlame original commit: e02c73e7bd4bed108e60527f81fb8af00e361bb6
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2019
@marco-c
Bug 1350254 part 8. Switch CryptoKey to [Serializable]. r=baku
501eca8 
The spec doesn't say to do this, but I think we should.  See
w3c/webcrypto#222

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D35722

UltraBlame original commit: e02c73e7bd4bed108e60527f81fb8af00e361bb6
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified-and-comments-removed that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2019
@marco-c
Bug 1350254 part 8. Switch CryptoKey to [Serializable]. r=baku
0c77ca3 
The spec doesn't say to do this, but I think we should.  See
w3c/webcrypto#222

Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D35722

UltraBlame original commit: e02c73e7bd4bed108e60527f81fb8af00e361bb6
@plehegar plehegar added the ErratumRaised Raised to become an Errata later label May 5, 2020
@twiss twiss mentioned this issue May 4, 2021
Merged
@twiss twiss closed this as completed in #259 May 4, 2021
@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented May 4, 2021

I filed #260 as follow-up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ErratumRaised Raised to become an Errata later
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Mark CryptoKey [Serializable] in IDL w3c/webcrypto
4 participants
@domenic @bzbarsky @plehegar @annevk