Closed MxFr closed 1 year ago
Merging #207 (efc2186) into main (cd68f74) will decrease coverage by
0.24%
. The diff coverage is0.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #207 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 45.94% 45.69% -0.25%
==========================================
Files 44 44
Lines 1110 1116 +6
==========================================
Hits 510 510
- Misses 600 606 +6
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
.../LettuceEncrypt/Internal/AcmeCertificateFactory.cs | 0.00% <0.00%> (ø) |
|
src/LettuceEncrypt/LettuceEncryptOptions.cs | 100.00% <ø> (ø) |
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 cd68f74...efc2186. Read the comment docs.
Changes look fine to me. Did you consider writing a unit test for the new code?
A unit test will probably be a good idea, but I will need some time to think on how to test it properly.
I think since the PfxBuilder is created by the CertificateChainExtensions in a extension method I dont think I can mock it. So I'd need to use a mock client returning a certificate with an issuer that is not supported and a IAdditionalIssuersSource
that supplies that issuer.
I might manage it in the next few days.
Any progress on unit tests? Writing tests on this code can be hard. Did you at least do some manual testing on this?
This pull request appears to be stale. Please comment if you believe this should remain open and reviewed. If there are no updates, it will be closed in 14 days.
Thank you for your contributions to this project. This pull request has been closed due to inactivity.
These changes allowed me mitigate #194 and use the LetsEncrypt staging environment.
Adding the new service
IAdditionalIssuersSource
looked like the most flexible solution opposed to a list of certificates in theLettuceEncryptOptions
and allows to combine different approaches.