Should key usages be tracked as a `HashSet` instead?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 505
- Forks
- 157
- Avg merge
- 39m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
In #264 code is pretty ugly because we're keeping track of whether an EKU already exists in the Vec that we hold. Should CertificateParams::key_usages and extended_key_usages be HashSet instead?
- Does the order matter?
- Is there a valid use case for having the same usage twice?
(I guess it could even be more like a bitset similar to what x509-parser apparently does.)
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the changes referenced in #264 and the CertificateParams::key_usages and extended_key_usages fields. Determine whether usage order or duplicates are meaningful, then compare the proposed HashSet and bitset representations. Done means reaching and documenting a representation decision with its API implications.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- security
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100