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.

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

Remove secret_connection and ring dependency #60

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 19, 2019

Conversation

yihuang
Copy link
Contributor

@yihuang yihuang commented Nov 11, 2019

I just upgraded the ring dependency, changed secret_connection.rs accordingly, hope you like it.
We are using tendermint-rs in our project, there are probably a few PRs following this one ;D

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

tarcieri commented Nov 11, 2019

Note that per #27 I thought the plan was to move Secret Connection back to the KMS repo (in which case the Secret Connection impl in this crate should just be deleted).

Are you actually using Secret Connection via this crate?

In the KMS repo, I moved the (re-vendored) Secret Connection implementation from ring over to the chacha20poly1305 crate to avoid future ring-asm conflicts (#11):

tendermint/tmkms#366

@yihuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yihuang commented Nov 11, 2019

Good to know that, we don't use secret_connection. We upgrade this only because the version of ring conflicts with our dependencies. I would love to see it removed ;D

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

tarcieri commented Nov 11, 2019

@yihuang are you experiencing that conflict even when the secret-connection Cargo feature is disabled? I would've thought that would avoid it, and that's what KMS is presently doing:

https://github.com/tendermint/kms/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L49

But yeah, ring-asm conflicts are super annoying, which is why I'd like to get rid of ring, especially considering we only use it for ChaCha20Poly1305.

@yihuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yihuang commented Nov 11, 2019

I don't see optional dependencies in git master version of tendermint-rs, I was not looking at the most recent version?

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

tarcieri commented Nov 11, 2019

@yihuang all of the cargo features were removed in the git master (with the goal of splitting things up into different crates)

The latest release (sans a point release to re-export signatory) is at:

https://github.com/interchainio/tendermint-rs/tree/v0.10.0/tendermint-rs

secret-connection is opt-in, so I'd be surprise if you saw ring conflicts unless you specifically activated it.

@yihuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yihuang commented Nov 11, 2019

Thanks, I see. But I think we will stick to the git version anyway because we want to work on the lite client implementation.

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

Aha! Ok

There seems to be a bit of confusion around #27, but I think the plan is still to continue Secret Connection work in the KMS repo, in which case I'd suggest deleting the implementation in this repo.

@yihuang yihuang force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 7fa9c57 to 622411f Compare November 11, 2019 18:18
@yihuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yihuang commented Nov 11, 2019

So I just changed the commit to remove secret_connection and related dependencies(hope I've got them all).

tarcieri
tarcieri previously approved these changes Nov 11, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@tarcieri tarcieri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If the tests pass, this looks good to me.

@ebuchman looks like CI may not be running?

@yihuang yihuang changed the title Upgrade ring to 0.16.9 Remove secret_connection and ring dependency Nov 14, 2019
@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 16, 2019

looks like CI may not be running?

Looks like all PRs coming from forks (not branches in this repo) do not trigger CI.

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

@liamsi weird, wonder why #66 is green. It'd be nice to merge this one.

@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 16, 2019

🤔 I think #66 is green because it seems CI is not required for this branch (interchainio:lite_impl_simple_merkle_merged)? Also noteworthy: I could merge #36 even without an approving review. (master seems to require an approving review and CI in case it comes from a branch). I suspect that if you approve this PR it can be merged; I guess CI would then run on merge.

For master GPG signed commits also seem to be a requirement.

liamsi
liamsi previously approved these changes Nov 16, 2019
tarcieri
tarcieri previously approved these changes Nov 17, 2019
@yihuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yihuang commented Nov 18, 2019

Do I need to re-commit with GPG signing on?

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

@yihuang looks like it. can you give that a try?

@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 18, 2019

I agree, it could unblock merging this (hopefully). I think I've already merged a few of @yihuang's PRs into my branch (apparently GPG signed commits aren't required there). Hope we won't have to redo those too 🤞

@yihuang
Copy link
Contributor Author

yihuang commented Nov 18, 2019

Re-commited with pgp signing, also removed tendermint/src/amino_types/secret_connection.rs.

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

Still saying it's waiting for GPG status to be reported 😢

@ebuchman any idea what's up with the GPG check? It seems to be rejecting GPG signed commits.

Also, are you sure you really want GPG signed commits? (as opposed to e.g. GPG signed tag objects for releases). See:

https://mikegerwitz.com/2012/05/a-git-horror-story-repository-integrity-with-signed-commits

@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 19, 2019

I'd also vote for signing releases / tags only.

@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 19, 2019

Not sure what is going on here. Now all commits are signed but GPG still shows up as "expected". Similarly for #59.

@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 19, 2019

Thanks @greg-szabo!

@liamsi
Copy link
Member

liamsi commented Nov 19, 2019

OK, CI doesn't run on forks but the GPG issue is resolved. Will merge now. Thanks again @yihuang :-)

@liamsi liamsi merged commit 538d5bc into informalsystems:master Nov 19, 2019
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.

None yet

3 participants