Open shreyasminocha opened 2 years ago
Short term: we're not using HashedElGamal and not supporting features that require it (encoding overvotes & write-ins).
In the fall, when ElectionGuard gets past the 1.0x versions in to 2.0, we'll bring this back.
So in the meantime what should we do about the numBytes
field? It causes issues with my compatibility tests, particularly in terms of deserializing and re-serializing the sample data. electionguard-python's padding approach has issues like you described earlier. I saw that electionguard-cpp just errors on plaintexts and ciphertexts whose length isn't a multiple of the block size. Should I implement something of that sort and adjust the tests accordingly?
Hmm. It really bugs me when we have a "correct" implementation and we have to introduce bugs.
I suggest we introduce a HashedElGamalCompat
structure of some kind, which is just an empty shell of a data structure. We can serialize and deserialize, but it has no actual code attached. Since we're not actually using it, we don't care about it yet.
Manually transferred.