Skip to content
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

564818 API revision | conditions | key keepers review #282

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 5, 2020
Merged

Conversation

eparovyshnaya
Copy link
Contributor

  • reimplement BundleKeykeeper over the new (1.0) interfaces
  • deprecate obsolete implementation
  • test new BundleKeykeeper
  • plug BundleKeyKeeper service to the sealed framework

 side work: extend documentation

Signed-off-by: elena.parovyshnaya <[email protected]>
 - reimplement BundleKeykeeper over the new (1.0) interfaces
 - deprecate obsolete implementation

Signed-off-by: elena.parovyshnaya <[email protected]>
 - test set for BundleKeykeeper

Signed-off-by: elena.parovyshnaya <[email protected]>
 - plug BundleKeyKeeper service to the sealed framework

Signed-off-by: elena.parovyshnaya <[email protected]>
@eparovyshnaya eparovyshnaya requested a review from ruspl-afed July 4, 2020 17:51
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 4, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #282 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #282      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   11.75%   11.73%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         645      646       +1     
  Lines       15904    15929      +25     
  Branches     1189     1190       +1     
==========================================
  Hits         1870     1870              
- Misses      13986    14011      +25     
  Partials       48       48              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...passage/lic/internal/api/io/DigestExpectation.java 0.00% <ø> (ø)
...rg/eclipse/passage/lic/base/io/LicensingPaths.java 0.00% <ø> (ø)
.../internal/base/io/FileNameFromLicensedProduct.java 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...clipse/passage/lic/equinox/io/BundleKeyKeeper.java 0.00% <ø> (ø)
...age/lic/internal/equinox/i18n/EquinoxMessages.java 0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ssage/lic/internal/equinox/io/BundleKeyKeeper.java 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../internal/equinox/io/EquinoxKeyKeeperRegistry.java 0.00% <ø> (ø)
...nternal/equinox/io/EquinoxStreamCodecRegistry.java 0.00% <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 3b430d3...f850888. Read the comment docs.


@Override
public InputStream productPublicKey() throws LicensingException {
URL resource = resource(Paths.get("OSGI-INF").resolve(keyFile())); //$NON-NLS-1$
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we have PassageBundlePath later to encapsulate a way to find the info like this?
We may want to store the licensing information under a subfolder later, like they store bundle properties under OSGI-INF/l10n

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thought about that, but lots of questions arised. This implementation sticks to the current functionality to keep status quo where it's possible. Let's do it when we actually will need it.

 - fix typos in error messages

Signed-off-by: elena.parovyshnaya <[email protected]>
@eparovyshnaya eparovyshnaya requested a review from ruspl-afed July 5, 2020 07:41
@eparovyshnaya eparovyshnaya merged commit 5e67979 into master Jul 5, 2020
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.

2 participants