Closed mycognosist closed 3 years ago
@mixmix Would be good to have your review here since you wrote that line.
Is there any one using this key field? If it's considered a mistake (should have never been there), then it doesn't count as a breaking change.
Meh. I think make it a patch and see what explodes. Merger gets to fix it! Jokes, i think it's unlikely to break anything. I just didn't do it because I didn't want any more negotiation at the time!
On Sat, 2 Oct 2021, 08:35 André Staltz, @.***> wrote:
Is there any one using this key field? If it's considered a mistake (should have never been there), then it doesn't count as a breaking change.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ssb-ngi-pointer/ssb-bfe-spec/pull/22#issuecomment-932499551, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUK3HQWZNEEGVT2PK5DGJTUEYEPJANCNFSM5FEZZXUQ .
Thanks for taking a look, @mixmix 🙏🏻
Merged and published as 0.4.0
.
While reviewing one of my PR's for
ssb-bfe-rs
, @staltz noticed that we have redundant data inbfe.json
(https://github.com/ssb-ngi-pointer/ssb-bfe-rs/pull/9#discussion_r720269293).The
encryption-key
type has both adata_length
and akey_length
. This PR simply removes the redundant data.I believe the next step will be to update
ssb-bfe
to useformat.data_length
in place offormat.key_length
in this single location: https://github.com/ssb-ngi-pointer/ssb-bfe/blob/7ea8dfe38749d496d528ec0eac30e6e670e133fb/util.js#L17