-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
[#112] Enable GPG checks of channel artifacts #268
Conversation
@jmesnil could you review this please? It's a large one, if it makes it easy I can split it up into spec/API changes and implementation PRs. |
} | ||
|
||
@JsonIgnore | ||
public boolean requiresGpgCheck() { |
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 need this method as it kind of duplicates isGpgCheck
?
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 added it to avoid having to check isGpgCheck()
for null
every time, but I think it just made it more confusing, I'm happy to remove it.
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.
+1, let's store the field as a boolean
and deal only once with the nullability of the Boolean
param in the constructor.
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 ended up keeping the field as a Boolean
to allow channels without gpg-check
fields to be deserialized & serialized without changes. The public getter deals with the null check
cbb8103
to
005f85b
Compare
049320a
to
5f1f025
Compare
@jmesnil this should be ready for re-review, sorry about the delay. Again if it's easier I can break this down into smaller PRs (e.g. API/Spec changes vs implementation) |
@jmesnil would you be able to re-review the changes? I think it'd be good to get at least the channel part of this merged for WF35 so we don't have the problem with potential schema changes |
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.
@spyrkob This looks good apart from a few edits. Ping me when you make the change and I'll merge and release a new version. Thanks!
@jmesnil I addressed the review notes apart from the class name as it's part of bouncycastle library |
Fixes #112