Skip to content

Add TMK file format support#254

Closed
piotr-roslaniec wants to merge 1 commit intonucypher:betafrom
piotr-roslaniec:beta
Closed

Add TMK file format support#254
piotr-roslaniec wants to merge 1 commit intonucypher:betafrom
piotr-roslaniec:beta

Conversation

@piotr-roslaniec
Copy link
Contributor

@piotr-roslaniec piotr-roslaniec commented Jul 20, 2023

Type of PR:

  • Feature

Required reviews:

  • 2

What this does:

  • Adds encapsulated encryption to Enrico
  • Adds TMK serialization format

Issues fixed/closed:

  • Fixes #...

Why it's needed:

Explain how this PR fits in the greater context of the NuCypher Network.
E.g., if this PR address a nucypher/productdev issue, let reviewers know!

Notes for reviewers:

What should reviewers focus on?
Is there a particular commit/function/section of your PR that requires more attention from reviewers?

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #254 (7e19676) into beta (ae56829) will increase coverage by 0.54%.
The diff coverage is 95.74%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             beta     #254      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.66%   84.20%   +0.54%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines         967     1013      +46     
  Branches      121      129       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits          809      853      +44     
- Misses        152      153       +1     
- Partials        6        7       +1     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
src/characters/enrico.ts 90.41% <95.55%> (+7.65%) ⬆️
src/utils.ts 97.95% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️

@cygnusv
Copy link
Member

cygnusv commented Aug 8, 2023

Do we need a TMK format after the changes in nucypher/ferveo#149 (and TBD changes in nucypher-core)?

@derekpierre
Copy link
Member

Do we need a TMK format after the changes in nucypher/ferveo#149 (and TBD changes in nucypher-core)?

Yes. This is the goal of nucypher/nucypher#3194.

I think (?) this PR was created before as a stop gap measure, but it is unclear to me that this PR is needed or should be merged. @piotr-roslaniec ?

@piotr-roslaniec
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR was originally started 3 weeks ago, so perhaps it has outlived its usefulness. If we don't need to bridge the gap, I'd be okay with closing it.

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.

4 participants