Skip to content

Work around bad RSAKey import #61

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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 28, 2020
Merged

Work around bad RSAKey import #61

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 28, 2020

Conversation

jschlyter
Copy link
Collaborator

@jschlyter jschlyter commented Aug 27, 2020

@jschlyter jschlyter requested a review from rohe August 27, 2020 11:01
@jschlyter jschlyter self-assigned this Aug 27, 2020
@jschlyter jschlyter changed the title add test case to trigger bad RSAKey usage Work around bad RSAKey import Aug 27, 2020
@jschlyter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

closes #62

@jschlyter jschlyter mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2020
This was linked to issues Aug 28, 2020
@c00kiemon5ter c00kiemon5ter self-requested a review August 28, 2020 15:23
Copy link
Member

@c00kiemon5ter c00kiemon5ter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The gist of this changeset is here:
https://github.com/IdentityPython/JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT/pull/61/files#diff-716790a3eab9c4e93fe7ea00a9db630fL175-R178

The calculation was wrong and resulted to an invalid key.
👍 to merge from me.

@jschlyter jschlyter merged commit 930dd5f into develop Aug 28, 2020
@jschlyter jschlyter deleted the rsa_import branch August 28, 2020 15:31
@angelakis
Copy link
Contributor

The fix looks good to me, but let's try to split formatting fixes from bug fixes (in different PRs preferably).

@jschlyter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The fix looks good to me, but let's try to split formatting fixes from bug fixes (in different PRs preferably).

Agree, this was due to error in black and I didn't want the tests to fail.

@rohe
Copy link
Contributor

rohe commented Sep 1, 2020

I'm OK with the changes.
Sorry, I'm a bit late. Building a green house :-) 🏡

@c00kiemon5ter
Copy link
Member

Hello, I'm coming back to this to note a couple of things:

@jschlyter I would like us to wait for all reviewers to give a thumbs up before merging. Ideally, one should not merge their own pull-requests, but somebody else that has reviewed the changes should do it.

Secondly, it is nice to name and give credit to people that provided the fix. While the things we do are in the open and for the community and credits do not actually matter, it still is polite to keep it in mind and gives a boost for motivation for the effort that went into the analysis of the issue and the fix. At the same time this forces us to have proper commit messages that mention what was happening and how it got fixed.

Thirdly, we are not done. This is a bug that is now breaking the library. This appeared after a dependency was upgraded. People using the current-latest version of this library will still get a breakage. We should make a new release so that users can upgrade and not get bitten by this.

@jschlyter
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@c00kiemon5ter I was not aware of a review threshold > 1, hence my merge when you had approved the changes. If the policy is to require all reviewers, I'm all fine with that.

Agree on the mention part, will keep that in mind.

And yes, we should do a new release.

@rohe
Copy link
Contributor

rohe commented Sep 7, 2020

Presently we have no review threshold >1. So far one is enough.
I agree with @jschlyter that if more then one reviewer is assigned all should accept the change before it can be merged.

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.

Bug in iqmp calculation RSA import fail
4 participants