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

Deprecate legacy device-to-device verification #6937

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2022
Merged

Conversation

Anderas
Copy link
Contributor

@Anderas Anderas commented Oct 19, 2022

Corresponding SDK change

Deprecate legacy device-to-device verification that begins with m.key.verification.start events rather than m.key.verification.request. This means that device verification will be observing verification request rather than a transaction

@Anderas Anderas changed the title Device-to-device verification Deprecate legacy device-to-device verification Oct 19, 2022
@Anderas Anderas requested a review from a team October 19, 2022 14:12
@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Oct 19, 2022

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@gileluard gileluard requested review from a team and phloux and removed request for a team October 19, 2022 14:13
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 19, 2022

Codecov Report

Base: 11.79% // Head: 11.74% // Decreases project coverage by -0.04% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ac6c8f0) compared to base (ff0faf5).
Patch coverage: 0.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6937      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    11.79%   11.74%   -0.05%     
===========================================
  Files         1573     1592      +19     
  Lines       156087   156624     +537     
  Branches     63090    63250     +160     
===========================================
- Hits         18407    18396      -11     
- Misses      137059   137607     +548     
  Partials       621      621              
Flag Coverage Δ
uitests 54.88% <ø> (?)
unittests 6.13% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
Riot/Modules/Application/LegacyAppDelegate.m 14.49% <0.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
...rification/Common/KeyVerificationCoordinator.swift 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ice/Start/DeviceVerificationStartCoordinator.swift 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...evice/Start/DeviceVerificationStartViewModel.swift 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...erification/User/UserVerificationCoordinator.swift 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...m/Members/Detail/RoomMemberDetailsViewController.m 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...xKit/Controllers/MXKAuthenticationViewController.m 17.04% <0.00%> (-1.92%) ⬇️
...ogin/Common/Service/MatrixSDK/QRLoginService.swift 7.64% <0.00%> (-0.89%) ⬇️
...tSwiftUI/Modules/Room/Composer/View/Composer.swift 90.19% <0.00%> (-0.52%) ⬇️
Riot/Categories/UITextView.swift 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 34 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@Anderas Anderas requested review from a team and ismailgulek and removed request for phloux and a team October 24, 2022 07:38
Copy link
Contributor

@ismailgulek ismailgulek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@Anderas Anderas merged commit 1f59872 into develop Oct 25, 2022
@Anderas Anderas deleted the andy/trust_devices branch October 25, 2022 13:07
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.

2 participants