-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 296
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move out check credProtectPolicy logic #516
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Move the credProtectPolicy check outside credential ID decryption & discoverable credential finding. Modify the unit tests, and add unit tests for credProtectPolicy checking in non resident flows that were originally missing.
ia0
reviewed
Jul 21, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code-wise LGTM
I think coverage decreased because the amount of covered code paths along with total code paths decreased. The introduced code paths in this PR should be covered well, and the only deleted unit test corresponds to a deleted path. |
kaczmarczyck
approved these changes
Jul 22, 2022
kaczmarczyck
added a commit
to kaczmarczyck/OpenSK
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2023
We accidentally lost this check in google#516. I refactored some of the filters for better style. The actual difference in logic is just one line in CTAP1 authenticate, everything else is style, a test and the order in which we convert and filter the credentials: ``` let credential_source = filter_listed_credential(credential_source, false) .ok_or(Ctap1StatusCode::SW_WRONG_DATA)?; ```
kaczmarczyck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2023
We accidentally lost this check in #516. I refactored some of the filters for better style. The actual difference in logic is just one line in CTAP1 authenticate, everything else is style, a test and the order in which we convert and filter the credentials: ``` let credential_source = filter_listed_credential(credential_source, false) .ok_or(Ctap1StatusCode::SW_WRONG_DATA)?; ```
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Move the credProtectPolicy check outside credential ID decryption &
discoverable credential finding. Modify the unit tests, and add unit
tests for credProtectPolicy checking in non resident flows that were
originally missing.
This should have no behavioral differences.