-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
fix(deps): update github.com/opiproject/opi-api digest to b3c06e7 #242
Conversation
We're currently processing your upload. This comment will be updated when the results are available. |
Signed-off-by: Artsiom Koltun <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Artsiom Koltun <[email protected]>
case strings.Contains(s1, "X509"): | ||
ret.Type = pb.CertificateType_CERT_X509 | ||
ret.Type = pb.CertificateType_CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_UNSPECIFIED |
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.
@sandersms is this correct mapping according to this api change?
Should our api look like this instead, so we could use CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509
here?
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED = 0;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509 = 1;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_AC = 2;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_CRL = 3;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_OCSP_RESPONSE = 4;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_PUBKEY = 5;
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.
good catch @artek-koltun
CERT_X509 = 0;
CERT_X509_AC = 1;
CERT_X509_CRL = 2;
CERT_OCSP_RESPONSE = 3;
CERT_PUBKEY = 4;
to
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED = 0;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509 = 1;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_AC = 2;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_CRL = 3;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_OCSP_RESPONSE = 4;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_PUBKEY = 5;
instead of
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_UNSPECIFIED = 0;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_AC = 1;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_X509_CRL = 2;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_OCSP_RESPONSE = 3;
CERTIFICATE_TYPE_PUBKEY = 4;
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.
The issue may require a different fix that I am working now based on the test failure in the strongswan
is #241 the same ? |
yeah, didn't notice that PR. Closing this one then |
Addresses #240
The same CI failure was observed on previous builds like https://github.com/opiproject/opi-strongswan-bridge/actions/runs/6291333341/job/17079616515