Skip to content

Conversation

@djc
Copy link
Member

@djc djc commented Sep 15, 2025

No description provided.

@djc djc requested review from cpu and ctz September 15, 2025 13:07
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 15, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 97.43%. Comparing base (064a68b) to head (8c91077).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/error.rs 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #382      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.45%   97.43%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        4088     4101      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits         3984     3996      +12     
- Misses        104      105       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
@djc djc added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 15, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit b88328a Sep 15, 2025
38 of 40 checks passed
@djc djc deleted the empty-eku branch September 15, 2025 13:27
@djc
Copy link
Member Author

djc commented Sep 15, 2025

  • Published rustls-webpki v0.103.6 at registry crates-io
  • [new tag] v/0.103.6 -> v/0.103.6
  • Release notes
Comment on lines +947 to +948
let mut empty_eku = untrusted::Reader::new(untrusted::Input::from(&[]));
let validator = KeyUsage::required_if_present(EKU_SERVER_AUTH);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

FWIW, I also spot-checked this against a full DER encoded certificate I made with pyca/cryptography adding the EKU extension the same way as the upstream x509-limbo test case and the expected error occurs 👍

#206 is the broader tracking issue to bring that project's coverage in-house.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

4 participants