★ wanayoo — archive 1999 https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/28116Nouvelle recherche | Portail wanayoo
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

tls: rename validateKeyCert in _tls_common.js #28116

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

danbev
Copy link
Member

@danbev danbev commented Jun 7, 2019

This commit renames validateKeyCert to validateKeyCertArg to avoid
confusing this with something that would validate the actual key or
certificate.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot commented Jun 7, 2019 •

Sadly, an error occurred when I tried to trigger a build. :(
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/23843/

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot commented Jun 7, 2019

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

@mscdex mscdex commented Jun 7, 2019

s/_tls_commons/_tls_common/ in commit message

@mscdex
Copy link
Contributor

@mscdex mscdex commented Jun 7, 2019

Also I think the subsystem prefix should be tls: instead of crypto:.

This commit renames validateKeyCert to validateKeyCertArg to avoid
confusing this with something that would validate the actual key or
certificate.
@danbev
Copy link
Member Author

@danbev danbev commented Jun 7, 2019

@mscdex Thanks, I've fixed both issues now.

@danbev danbev changed the title crypto: rename validateKeyCert in _tls_commons.js tls: rename validateKeyCert in _tls_common.js Jun 7, 2019
cjihrig
cjihrig approved these changes Jun 7, 2019
@sam-github
Copy link
Contributor

@sam-github sam-github commented Jun 7, 2019

I'm fine with this, as-is, but maybe validateKeyOrCertOption() would be more accurate? It's not being validated that its the key's cert, and its passed as an option, not an arg (though the error is ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE).

lpinca
lpinca approved these changes Jun 7, 2019
@danbev
Copy link
Member Author

@danbev danbev commented Jun 10, 2019

I'm fine with this, as-is, but maybe validateKeyOrCertOption() would be more accurate?

I like that better. I've updated with a commit now. Thanks

@nodejs-github-bot

This comment has been hidden.

Trott
Trott approved these changes Jun 13, 2019
@Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Jun 13, 2019

@Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Jun 13, 2019

Landed in 173bee2

@Trott Trott closed this Jun 13, 2019
Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this issue Jun 13, 2019
This commit renames validateKeyCert to validateKeyCertArg to avoid
confusing this with something that would validate the actual key or
certificate.

PR-URL: nodejs#28116
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sam Roberts <vieuxtech@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
BridgeAR added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 17, 2019
This commit renames validateKeyCert to validateKeyCertArg to avoid
confusing this with something that would validate the actual key or
certificate.

PR-URL: #28116
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <anto.aravinth.cse@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Sam Roberts <vieuxtech@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
@BridgeAR BridgeAR mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2019
@danbev danbev deleted the validateKeyCertArg branch Aug 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants