Skip to content

Conversation

djc
Copy link
Member

@djc djc commented Feb 29, 2024

Aligning with the API guidelines.

@djc djc requested review from est31 and cpu and removed request for est31 February 29, 2024 12:22
Copy link
Member

@cpu cpu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@djc I think there's one more candidate for fixing in crl.rs:

rcgen/rcgen/src/crl.rs

Lines 78 to 81 in 3c3e984

/// Returns the certificate revocation list (CRL) parameters.
pub fn get_params(&self) -> &CertificateRevocationListParams {
&self.params
}

Otherwise LGTM. Thank you

@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented Feb 29, 2024

Renamed CertificateRevocationList::params().

@djc djc added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 1, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Mar 1, 2024
@djc djc added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 2, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Mar 2, 2024
@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Mar 2, 2024

Regarding the problems with merging, there is some (legitimate) CI failures: https://github.com/rustls/rcgen/actions/runs/8121328585

error[E0599]: no method named `get_params` found for struct `rcgen::CertificateRevocationList` in the current scope
   --> rcgen/tests/generic.rs:175:47
    |
175 |         let crl_number = BigUint::from_bytes_be(crl.get_params().crl_number.as_ref());
    |                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^ help: there is a method with a similar name: `params`

@djc djc added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 4, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit bdfddb1 Mar 4, 2024
@djc djc deleted the no-getters branch March 4, 2024 09:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants