Skip to content

Conversation

@tankyleo
Copy link
Contributor

@tankyleo tankyleo commented Dec 6, 2025

No description provided.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Dec 6, 2025

👋 Thanks for assigning @tnull as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

@tankyleo tankyleo requested a review from tnull December 6, 2025 02:05
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @tnull! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Copy link
Contributor

@tnull tnull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems relatively straightforward - but for my understanding: is the plan to also add the issuance part in this PR?

pub(crate) struct Config {
pub(crate) server_config: ServerConfig,
pub(crate) postgresql_config: Option<PostgreSQLConfig>,
pub(crate) postgresql_config: PostgreSQLConfig,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this mandatory now? How will this work with the InMemoryStore or any other impl we'll add?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tankyleo tankyleo Dec 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We currently don't support any alternative backends, and expect if this is None. I would prefer failing earlier, with the Config member type to represent our current status (ie not Option<PostgreSQLConfig> but PostgreSQLConfig).

The error message if the postgresql_config table is not present is this one:

Failed to load configuration: TOML parse error at line 1, column 1
  |
1 | [server_config]
  | ^
missing field `postgresql_config`

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That being said, I'm thinking we keep this Option to open up the InMemoryStore use case later.

@tankyleo
Copy link
Contributor Author

tankyleo commented Dec 8, 2025

Seems relatively straightforward - but for my understanding: is the plan to also add the issuance part in this PR?

Do you think issuance is in-scope for VSS-server ? My immediate thinking is VSS-server should only be verifying, and not touch the private key. Issuance should be handled by something separate with different security measures that does have this privileged access to the private key.

See vss channel, it seems the immediate request from users is just the ability to set the public key for verifying JWT tokens.

@tankyleo tankyleo requested a review from tnull December 8, 2025 16:51
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.

3 participants