Skip to content

Update E-121 to change endpoint name #125

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 10, 2025
Merged

Conversation

mpeters
Copy link
Member

@mpeters mpeters commented Jun 4, 2025

Update Enhancement #121 to use /verify/evidency instead of just /verify since /verify/identity already exists.

Also change to use "valid" return parameter instead of "success" to matter match other Keylime APIs

Update Enhancement keylime#121 to use /verify/evidency instead of just
/verify since /verify/identity already exists.

Also change to use "valid" return parameter instead of "success" to
matter match other Keylime APIs

Signed-off-by: Michael Peters <[email protected]>
@mpeters mpeters self-assigned this Jun 9, 2025
@mpeters mpeters requested a review from ansasaki June 9, 2025 20:23
Copy link
Contributor

@ansasaki ansasaki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added a comment about the expected possible values for the valid field. Otherwise, it looks good to me!

@@ -150,7 +127,7 @@ response as we can for the failure(s).
The API will return a response like the following:

{
"success": 0,
"valid": 0,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we expect this to receive values other than 0 or 1 in future?
If not, I would suggest to change this to be an actual boolean and not an integer.
If yes, then, I would change the field name to something like result because valid receiving a range of possible values is confusing (at least to me).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that they should be booleans, but for the moment I was making it more consistent with other APIs like /verify/identity and /mbpolicies/. If we do change them they should all be changed together, but probably in another enhancement/change.

@mpeters mpeters merged commit ed16296 into keylime:master Jun 10, 2025
1 check passed
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