FDO 1.2 Delegate Support #24
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Brad Goodman <brad@bradgoodman.com>
|
Wondering if this should go into a seperate/new "1.2" branch...? |
Yes, I'll create a 1.2 branch to target. I think it would also be good to work on a branch that we can both push to, because this is such a large contribution that I'd rather just directly help with code cleanup and refactoring than ask you to make a million tiny changes via code review comments. |
| @@ -101,3 +101,42 @@ func TestSignAndVerify(t *testing.T) { | |||
| } | |||
| }) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func TestSomethingThatFailedSignatureVerificationOnceInCIForUnknownReasons(t *testing.T) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This got re-added and can be removed.
| @@ -752,9 +752,11 @@ func (d *Decoder) decodeArray(rv reflect.Value, additional []byte) error { | |||
| return d.decodeArrayToStruct(rv, additional) | |||
| case reflect.Slice, reflect.Array: | |||
| return d.decodeArrayToSlice(rv, additional) | |||
| case reflect.Map: | |||
| return d.decodeMap(rv, additional) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is new functionality and needs explicit tests.
Is decoding an array into a map something we really want, though? It seems to violate the principle of least surprise. If you try to decode an array and provide a map pointer, is that more likely intended or a mistake?
It's also just not that hard to convert a slice of pairs into a map with Go code after decoding... If nothing else, we may want this to be a configurable option of the decoder that is off by default.
Where is this functionality required in this PR?
No description provided.