Fully drop openssl in favor of cryptography#197
Closed
jvanasco wants to merge 2 commits intocertbot:mainfrom
Closed
Fully drop openssl in favor of cryptography#197jvanasco wants to merge 2 commits intocertbot:mainfrom
jvanasco wants to merge 2 commits intocertbot:mainfrom
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thanks for writing up this alternative! I agree that just going ahead and dropping |
1 task
Contributor
|
josepy 1.15.0 has released, so we're now ready to start integrating this code! I do think |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks for reaching out. I'd be happy to get you a PR in the morning. |
Merged
Contributor
Author
|
Closed. Addressed in #212 |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is the requested alternative to #196 ; while I was happy to generate this PR, I would rather see a less breaking approach as suggested in the other PR.
The only other thing to note here is changing the test case that proxies attributes from the
wrappedobject, as Cryptography does not have that particular attribute. In the other PR I calculated it; in this one I just switched to another one. IMHO, I think entirely dropping the attribute proxy is worth considering.Edit: The approach in #182 is possibly better than this one as it fully drops the
ComparableX509object. If things are going to break, they might as well drop that as it exists to only compare two objects.