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

Allow to specify used trustmodel in gpg.verify #50474

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 20, 2018

Conversation

kyuubii
Copy link
Contributor

@kyuubii kyuubii commented Nov 12, 2018

What does this PR do?

It allows to explicitly specify the trust model used by gpg.verify, such as direct or tofu+pgp

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

None

Previous Behavior

gpg.verify always used the trust model implicitly defined by python-gnupg/GnuPG

New Behavior

The previous behaviour can be overridden by explicitly providing a trust model.

Tests written?

No

Commits signed with GPG?

Yes

@dwoz
Copy link
Contributor

dwoz commented Nov 13, 2018

@kyuubii it looks like there are 0 unit and/or integration tests for this module. How do you feel about adding one, either unit or integration?

@dwoz dwoz self-requested a review November 13, 2018 09:39
@kyuubii
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyuubii commented Nov 15, 2018

It looks like the following failing test jenkins/pr/py2-centos-7 is not related to this pull request (psutil.NoSuchProcess process no longer exists (pid=16777)).

@kyuubii kyuubii force-pushed the gpg-trust-model branch 3 times, most recently from b803a0f to bca14b2 Compare November 15, 2018 12:49
@kyuubii
Copy link
Contributor Author

kyuubii commented Nov 15, 2018

@kyuubii it looks like there are 0 unit and/or integration tests for this module. How do you feel about adding one, either unit or integration?

Due to our current time constraints, I won't get around to provide unit or even integration tests.

@cachedout cachedout merged commit e86ea9c into saltstack:fluorine Nov 20, 2018
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.

None yet

3 participants