Streamline signing API #233
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
djc
force-pushed
the
sign-api
branch
2 times, most recently
from
80fbb90
to
59c7fb3
Compare
cpu
reviewed
Feb 29, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Change the names to be more passive voice (signed_by()?), since conceptually the params are what's being signed
I don't find the approach in this branch too awkward, but this option sounds a little bit better. Was there a reason you hesitated to select it up-front? I suppose it's more common for this sort of function to be named in an active tense?
est31
reviewed
Mar 1, 2024
est31
reviewed
Mar 1, 2024
Closed
|
Used |
djc
force-pushed
the
sign-api
branch
3 times, most recently
from
d2a5e0d
to
9ef10af
Compare
est31
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
IMO this is a more idiomatic API. I don't love the
sign_self()name but haven't come up with anything better.Alternatives:
signed_by()?), since conceptually the params are what's being signedKeyPairinstead -- this avoids the active/passive confusion but seems conceptually weird