Skip to content

Conversation

djc
Copy link
Member

@djc djc commented May 1, 2025

This takes the processing steps for transforming an x509_parser::Certificate into CertificateParams and distributes them over the relevant element's types, in preparation for splitting from_ca_cert_pem() and from_ca_cert_der() from CertificateParams (to make it statically obvious that their use is only intended to build an Issuer).

@djc djc requested review from cpu and est31 May 1, 2025 14:02
Copy link
Member

@cpu cpu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very nice! Thank you.

I think the coverage CI failures are fair to ignore since they're pre-existing coverage gaps.

Copy link
Member

@est31 est31 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

makes sense but can you squash?

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented May 8, 2025

makes sense but can you squash?

Why? All of these commits compile and could likely pass CI on their own.

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented May 9, 2025

I feel it's too fine. I think it should be easy to squash the "Move ..." commits together, they are form an independent unit compared to the other commits.

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented May 9, 2025

I feel it's too fine. I think it should be easy to squash the "Move ..." commits together, they are form an independent unit compared to the other commits.

What are the downsides of merging smaller commits? If there's ever a regression or you want to sift through git blame, smaller commits will definitely be easier to review.

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented May 9, 2025

On the other hand, it's harder to understand the motivation of a bigger commit compared to a small one. But whatever, it's bikeshedding. Let's just merge this one.

@djc djc added this pull request to the merge queue May 9, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit e5203ef May 9, 2025
26 of 28 checks passed
@djc djc deleted the parsed branch May 9, 2025 14:55
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.

3 participants