Conversation
|
||
pub struct ParticipantState { | ||
// credentials | ||
pub pk: ParticipantPublicKey, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe we could use the EncryptKeyPair
for this now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SigningKeyPair
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah true, I will change it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shall we do the same with
ephm_pk: SumParticipantEphemeralPublicKey,
ephm_sk: SumParticipantEphemeralSecretKey,
in Participant<Sum>
and Participant<Sum2>
as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good! i'm happy to help with the ffi parts.
|
||
pub struct ParticipantState { | ||
// credentials | ||
pub pk: ParticipantPublicKey, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SigningKeyPair
35726d4
to
124ba8d
Compare
124ba8d
to
174c74e
Compare
@finiteprods @little-dude @janpetschexain changes since the last review
Note: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great 👍. We should clean the commit history up before merging. I don't know if you prefer to address https://github.com/xaynetwork/xaynet/pull/471/files#r462925062 now or later in a follow-up PR. I'm fine with both.
I removed the @little-dude |
Nice, I think this is an improvement 👍
Sure or just splitting it in a bunch of self-contained commits works as well 👍 |
Not done yet but I can already be reviewed.
What is done:
I actually wanted to create a PR for each module
Participant
,ClientState
andMobileClient
. However, when I implemented theClientState
struct, I had to change a lot on the participant struct and it got a bit messy. For this reason, I packed everything in one PR. If you want I can also create a new PR for each module.My suggestion would be that we keep the old client/participant for now and just add the mobile client to the repository and first test if the mobile approach works