Adding support for KMS "encryption context" #18
Merged
Conversation
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
Changing argparse to use subparsers in order to allow for the differing expected positional arguments for each action
|
They k=v syntax works for me. I think it's clear enough what is happening, and is easy to template out in scripts. |
a5an0
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2015
Adding support for KMS "encryption context"
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds support for Encryption Contexts. I've implemented it so as to be backwards compatible with all existing credstash interfaces.
I had to change from using a single global argparse to use subparsers in order to allow for the differing expected positional arguments for each action. Previously this was worked around in the
putcommand by having anargs='?'setting for thevalueargument. Using subparsers will accommodate the differing expected positional arguments. It also makes the usage clearer as to what's expected for each different action.I figured using positional arguments for the encryption contexts in a
key=valueformat would work best but I'm happy to change this to some other format (optional--fooarguments, one argument for the key and one for the value, etc)This should address issues #13 and #17