Open di opened 2 months ago
I'm a big fan of this idea! My personal preference is for option 2: IMO it'd be ideal to have this in a sigstore-models
(or similar) library that both sigstore-python
and anything else that needs direct model access at the API level can use.
Having it be in a separate library also aligns closely with #1049 -- a "pure" models API could be done with just pydantic
, which would both make the models API more Pythonic and eliminate a complexifying dependency (betterproto
) of ours.
Description
Currently this project publicly provides
models.Bundle
which supportsto_json
andfrom_json
, but does not expose a lower-level API to create/modify specific fields of the Sigstore bundle, read/write the bundle to/from a file, etc. This makes it challenging to use the Sigstore bundle format from within other Python libraries/applications, including use cases that include non-signing bundle operations, PKI based signing, etc.Desired outcome
Either:
sigstore-python
to include a lower-level API to create/modify a Sigstore bundlesigstore-bundle
library with a public API that this project can consume as a sub-dependency(cc @haydentherapper @mihaimaruseac @woodruffw)