Skip to content

Conversation

@lukpueh
Copy link
Member

@lukpueh lukpueh commented Apr 10, 2024

  • addresses most of #731
  • blocks on #771 (commits are included in this PR)
  • please review commit by commit and see commit messages for details

closes #172, closes #219, closes #280, closes #286, closes #309, closes #310, #477


This PR removes legacy key modules, tests and references. The Signer API provides a more powerful and modern replacement.

In addition, this commit removes custom exception classes, the legacy settings module, and the optional pynacl dependency, which have become obsolete.

To account for the significant ratio change of tested to untested code, the CI coverage requirement is lowered. This does not mean that the absolute test coverage of the remaining Signer API decreases by this PR!

Lukas Puehringer added 5 commits April 12, 2024 11:12
With the upcoming removal of legacy interfaces and related tests, the
ratio of tested to untested code changes significantly.

This does not mean that the test coverage of the Signer API decreases!

Also note that overall test coverage might be higher (see secure-systems-lab#208).

Signed-off-by: Lukas Puehringer <lukas.puehringer@nyu.edu>
The Signer API provides a more powerful and modern replacement.

Signed-off-by: Lukas Puehringer <lukas.puehringer@nyu.edu>
With the removal of legacy key modules, some custom exception classes
are no longer needed.

Signed-off-by: Lukas Puehringer <lukas.puehringer@nyu.edu>
With the removal of legacy key modules, settings is no longer used or
needed.

fixes secure-systems-lab#219

Signed-off-by: Lukas Puehringer <lukas.puehringer@nyu.edu>
pynacl was used in legacy key modules, in addition to pyca/cryptography,
for its ed25519 implementation.  The replacement CryptoSigner only
depends on pyca/cryptography, which implements all needed key types
(including ed25519).

Signed-off-by: Lukas Puehringer <lukas.puehringer@nyu.edu>
@lukpueh lukpueh marked this pull request as ready for review April 12, 2024 09:16
@lukpueh lukpueh requested a review from jku April 12, 2024 09:16
Copy link
Collaborator

@jku jku left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks as I expected so I guess it's good to go?

I guess the best way to find out is to

  • merge these changes
  • create a python-tuf branch that works with securesystemslib main
  • make sure nothing breaks

?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

2 participants