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

feat(cli): introduce planet key sign command #1920

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 11, 2022

Conversation

moreal
Copy link
Contributor

@moreal moreal commented Apr 26, 2022

This pull requests introduces planet key sign command through KeyCommand in Libplanet.Extensions.Cocona.

The command provides a feature to sign the given message encoded by base64 with the given private key, and prints the signature encoded by base64.

$ dotnet run --project Libplanet.Tools/Libplanet.Tools.csproj -- key sign b8b01397-eee7-4c03-9a8d-4beee26ca7b9 AA== --passphrase ""
MEUCIQCvyRlQMqtuowjNSoR+5FCvzr/hcRWeWYAsZCQpAjtq7gIgJJLwq5YPCHktTKExhsyiiQmWj+aMQFVP6ZVucf+g5Rg=

@moreal moreal added tools Related to CLI tools (Libplanet.Tools) suggestion Suggestion or feature request labels Apr 26, 2022
@moreal moreal force-pushed the sign-command branch 3 times, most recently from 618ab92 to 5292ec6 Compare April 26, 2022 09:28
@moreal moreal changed the title feat(cli): introduce key sign command feat(cli): introduce planet key sign command Apr 26, 2022
@moreal
Copy link
Contributor Author

moreal commented Apr 27, 2022

As a remind, could you review this pull request if you have a time please?

)
{
PrivateKey key = UnprotectKey(keyId, passphrase);
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToBase64String(key.Sign(Convert.FromBase64String(message))));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's trivial but could you break the line? It looks quite long.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about printing out the raw bytes instead of base64?

Or at least hexadecimals might be better than base64, because there are quite many variations of base64, which confuse those who need to decode them.

If such behavior causing average terminal emulators to go weird concerns you, we could provide an option like -o/--binary-output=FILE:

# The signature is printed out in hexadecimals:
planet key sign 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 msg.dat

# The signature is written in the "sig.dat" file (no hex, but raw binary):
planet key sign \
  --binary-output sig.dat \
  00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 \
  msg.dat

# The signature is printed out in raw bytes:
planet key sign \
  --binary-output - \
  00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 \
  msg.dat

# The signature is written in the "-" file:
planet key sign \
  --binary-output ./- \
  00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 \
  msg.dat

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tried to implement the feature in 4487e53 commit. --binary-output option is optional and it prints the signature as hexadecimal string in default behaviour.

Comment on lines 172 to 176
[Argument(
"MESSAGE",
Description = "A message encoded by base64 encoding to sign."
)]
string message,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It'd better to take the message through a file as it can be long. (That's how gpg --sign command works.) Of course, - should mean the standard input here. E.g.:

# Sign the message that the "msg.dat" file contains:
planet key sign 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 msg.dat

# Sign the message provided from the stnadard input:
planet key sign 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 -

# Sign the message that the "-" file contains:
planet key sign 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 ./-

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tried to implement the feature in 735756f commit.

)
{
PrivateKey key = UnprotectKey(keyId, passphrase);
Console.WriteLine(Convert.ToBase64String(key.Sign(Convert.FromBase64String(message))));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about printing out the raw bytes instead of base64?

Or at least hexadecimals might be better than base64, because there are quite many variations of base64, which confuse those who need to decode them.

If such behavior causing average terminal emulators to go weird concerns you, we could provide an option like -o/--binary-output=FILE:

# The signature is printed out in hexadecimals:
planet key sign 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 msg.dat

# The signature is written in the "sig.dat" file (no hex, but raw binary):
planet key sign \
  --binary-output sig.dat \
  00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 \
  msg.dat

# The signature is printed out in raw bytes:
planet key sign \
  --binary-output - \
  00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 \
  msg.dat

# The signature is written in the "-" file:
planet key sign \
  --binary-output ./- \
  00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 \
  msg.dat

@moreal moreal requested a review from dahlia April 29, 2022 09:09
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 37 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +37 -0
Percentile : 14.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +2 -0
.cs : +35 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@dahlia dahlia requested a review from riemannulus April 29, 2022 09:33
@moreal
Copy link
Contributor Author

moreal commented May 11, 2022

This pull request's build seems failed because the linux-unity-test is flaky 🤔
Is there something I should do to merge in implementation side?

@dahlia
Copy link
Contributor

dahlia commented May 11, 2022

This pull request's build seems failed because the linux-unity-test is flaky 🤔 Is there something I should do to merge in implementation side?

Nevermind, I'm going to merge this right now. Thanks!

@dahlia dahlia merged commit ca07196 into planetarium:main May 11, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Extra Small suggestion Suggestion or feature request tools Related to CLI tools (Libplanet.Tools)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants