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

docs: fix typos #104

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 7, 2024
Merged

docs: fix typos #104

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 7, 2024

Conversation

kianmeng
Copy link
Contributor

@kianmeng kianmeng commented Jan 7, 2024

Found via typos --hidden --format brief and codespell -i3 -w -H

Found via `typos --hidden --format brief` and `codespell -i3 -w -H`
@yitsushi yitsushi merged commit 79c0d8f into yitsushi:main Jan 7, 2024
4 checks passed
@yitsushi
Copy link
Owner

yitsushi commented Jan 7, 2024

Thank you

@kianmeng
Copy link
Contributor Author

kianmeng commented Jan 7, 2024

🥳 🥳 🥳 🥳 🥳

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ type Storage struct {
Namespaces []*Namespace
}

// DecryptV1 tries to decrypt the original unsecure SHA1 storage.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this wasn't actually a typo, thats literally what the function is named

https://github.com/yitsushi/totp-cli/blob/main/internal/security/unsecure.go

(Whether that function name was a typo is another question)

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's true, and with the new wording it implies the storage itself was SHA1 "encrypted" (which is not an encryption, it's a hashing algo). But in all cases, this comment is not valid at all. It does not try to "decrypt the original unsecure SHA1 storage", it tries to decrypt using the old method (UnsecureSHA1) of hashish of the password. :/

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This should make it a bit more clear: #111

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