-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
[TECH-676] Use properly LatestConfig to encrypt affidavit #217
Merged
w0st
merged 1 commit into
main
from
TECH-676-use-properly-dbb-latest-config-to-encrypt-affidavit
Dec 14, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -272,7 +272,6 @@ export interface LatestConfig { | |
items: LatestConfigItems | ||
receipt?: string | ||
affidavit?: AffidavitConfig | ||
castRequestItemAttachmentEncryptionKey?: string | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This element is not available on the root object. |
||
} | ||
|
||
export interface LatestConfigItems { | ||
|
@@ -418,4 +417,4 @@ export interface ClientState { | |
voterGroup: string | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Given we're using TypeScript, can we make these
null
assertions at the Type level? (i.e., fail when parsing the API response)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.
@MateuszMichalowski @unnunhexium 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.
Are you referring to add union types with
null
possibility to these @av-lukas or you have something else in mind?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'm not sure how union types would be used here, but I'm referring to the fact that at this point in the lifecycle of the av_client, if the affidavit is present, then it also means that the client has been told to ask for one, via the configuration object. So, in that case, the
castRequestItemAttachmentEncryptionKey
should always be present, and the null checks shouldn't be necessary. The class that wraps it should enforce it to be present when parsing the request.