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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Implement order "ready" state #98

Closed
cpu opened this issue Mar 6, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Implement order "ready" state #98

cpu opened this issue Mar 6, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@cpu
Copy link
Contributor

cpu commented Mar 6, 2018

Per https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-acme-10#section-7.1.6

Once all of the authorizations listed in the order object are in the "valid" state, the order transitions to the "ready" state.
@munnerz munnerz mentioned this issue Apr 9, 2018
Closed
@cpu cpu mentioned this issue Apr 17, 2018
Closed
@cpu cpu mentioned this issue May 4, 2018
Merged
cpu added a commit that referenced this issue May 22, 2018
@cpu
Handle order status as a property of assoc. authz status. (#128)
fd24bc8 
This PR updates the way Pebble handles an Order's status field to closer match the way we handle it in Boulder. This means the order's status is considered to be a calculated field derived based on the order's error/beganProcessing/certificate fields and the status/expires/error of the order's associated authorizations. Along the way the new "Ready" status was implemented. This PR also addresses the problem of the order status not being updated when an authorization is failed. Now, an order has a problem details field that is set when an authorization associated with the order has a failed challenge validation.

Resolves #110 and #98
@felixfontein
Copy link
Contributor

Isn't this about the change described in https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/acmev2-order-ready-status/62866? If yes, is there a reason this issue is still open?

@cpu
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpu commented May 26, 2018

@felixfontein No reason except that I forgot to close it! Thanks for the ping.

@cpu cpu closed this as completed May 26, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@cpu @felixfontein