Closed tducheyne closed 2 years ago
Merging #8 into master will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8 +/- ##
==========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
==========================================
Files 10 5 -5
Lines 233 63 -170
==========================================
- Hits 233 63 -170
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...rkCore.DataEncryption/PropertyBuilderExtensions.cs | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
...meworkCore.DataEncryption/Providers/AesProvider.cs | 100.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
...eworkCore.DataEncryption/ModelBuilderExtensions.cs | 100.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
...ore.DataEncryption/Internal/EncryptionConverter.cs | 100.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
...workCore.DataEncryption.Test/Context/BookEntity.cs | ||
...rkCore.DataEncryption.Test/Helpers/StringHelper.cs | ||
...aEncryption.Test/Context/DatabaseContextFactory.cs |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 773c722...6ddbc2f. Read the comment docs.
Hi, sorry for the late reply about this PR.
About the return, you could just throw
an ArgumentNullException
instead of returning.
if (encryptionProvider == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(encryptionProvider), "Cannot initialize encryption with a null provider.");
}
I am OK with this PR for now. I let you replace the return
with a throw
if you want. Otherwise I'll merge this PR in develop
branch.
Hey guys,
Thanks for this, exactly what I was looking for. @Eastrall - Any estimation on when it's gonna be merged/released?
Thanks!
Hello,
I would like to know when this PR will gonna be released please ?
Thanks !
This PR adds support for Fluent API.
The only thing I'm not 100% happy with is the early return in the PropertyBuilder extension method. It's there only to accommodate the test methodology of creating a DbContext without an encryption provider for validation purposes.
I feel that this methodology is incorrect and that validation should be done with a diffent DbContext, but that's an issue for another PR.