Update STFL pipeline#130
Conversation
- run: ruff format Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
…S^MT key files for the pipeline. Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
- Generates the needed XMSS and XMSS^MT keys over different runs. Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
…S^MT keys. - Restores the pre-generated keys. - Display what keys were restored. Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
Signed-off-by: Guiliano99 <guilianolehmann@live.de>
# Conflicts: # .github/workflows/python_detailed.yml # .github/workflows/python_simplified.yml
Signed-off-by: Guiliano Lehmann <129761072+Guiliano99@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Should |
@dstebila Yes, it would only be used for testing, unless you also want to support key export for SLH-DSA, ML-KEM, and ML-DSA (to PEM). Since I install a stable version of liboqs, this could make the tests safer: issues related to key loading would be identified directly when testing against the latest version. But maybe this makes it more complicated. |
I don't have my own opinions of what the scope of this Python wrapper should be, whether key export to PEM is desirable (I guess #78 is somewhat along these lines), and the extent to which other tools in the ecosystem already provide that functionality. I'm somewhat inclined to keep our scope relatively narrow, in part due to limited resources within the project.
I'm not sure I understand. Is this basically talking about compatibility between one version of the liboqs-python wrapper and the next? |
Description
Motivation and Context
Note