Skip to content

Conversation

smuu
Copy link
Collaborator

@smuu smuu commented Jan 19, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Added base64 encoding/decoding support for verifying keys
    • Standardized verifying key handling across different command types
  • Dependency Updates

    • Added prism-serde as a project dependency
  • Improvements

    • Enhanced error handling for verifying key retrieval
    • Added logging for base64 verifying key representation

Signed-off-by: Smuu <18609909+Smuu@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 19, 2025

Walkthrough

This pull request introduces changes to handle verifying keys using base64 encoding across the CLI and keys components. A new dependency prism-serde is added to the CLI's Cargo.toml, and modifications are made to the main.rs to support base64 encoding and decoding of verifying keys. The verifying_keys.rs file gains a new ToBase64 trait implementation for the VerifyingKey enum, enabling consistent key handling across different command types.

Changes

File Change Summary
crates/cli/Cargo.toml Added prism-serde dependency with workspace = true
crates/cli/src/main.rs - Imported FromBase64 and ToBase64 traits
- Modified verifying key handling for LightClient, FullNode, and Prover commands
- Updated to use base64 decoding for key retrieval
crates/keys/src/verifying_keys.rs Added ToBase64 trait implementation for VerifyingKey

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant CLI as CLI Application
    participant Config as Configuration
    participant Keys as Verifying Keys
    
    CLI->>Config: Request Verifying Key
    Config-->>CLI: Return Base64 Encoded Key
    CLI->>Keys: Decode Base64 Key
    Keys-->>CLI: Provide Decoded Verifying Key
    CLI->>CLI: Process Command
Loading

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • distractedm1nd
  • sebasti810
  • jns-ps

Poem

🐰 Verifying keys, base64 encoded,
Dancing through bytes with grace transcended,
From CLI to keys, a rabbit's delight,
Transforming secrets with cryptographic might,
Encoding magic, no challenge too steep! 🔑✨


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
crates/cli/src/main.rs (1)

47-51: Standardize error handling across similar code paths.

The error handling for VerifyingKey::from_base64 is duplicated in both the LightClient and FullNode commands. Consider extracting this into a helper function to ensure consistent error handling.

+fn parse_verifying_key(base64: Option<String>) -> std::io::Result<VerifyingKey> {
+    base64
+        .ok_or_else(|| Error::new(ErrorKind::InvalidInput, "verifying key not found"))?
+        .try_into()
+        .map_err(|e: anyhow::Error| Error::new(ErrorKind::InvalidInput, e.to_string()))
+}

Then use it in both places:

-            let verifying_key_base64 = config
-                .verifying_key
-                .ok_or_else(|| Error::new(ErrorKind::InvalidInput, "verifying key not found"))?;
-            let prover_vk = VerifyingKey::from_base64(verifying_key_base64)
-                .map_err(|e: anyhow::Error| Error::new(ErrorKind::InvalidInput, e.to_string()))?;
+            let prover_vk = parse_verifying_key(config.verifying_key)?;

Also applies to: 158-162

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 72e198d and 19f8690.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • Cargo.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • crates/cli/Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
  • crates/cli/src/main.rs (4 hunks)
  • crates/keys/src/verifying_keys.rs (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
  • GitHub Check: unused dependencies
  • GitHub Check: unit-test
  • GitHub Check: integration-test
  • GitHub Check: build-and-push-image
🔇 Additional comments (3)
crates/cli/Cargo.toml (1)

36-36: LGTM!

The addition of prism-serde as a workspace dependency is appropriate for implementing base64 encoding/decoding functionality.

crates/keys/src/verifying_keys.rs (1)

253-257: LGTM! Clean implementation of ToBase64.

The implementation correctly leverages the existing to_bytes() method and is consistent with the existing FromBase64 implementation.

crates/cli/src/main.rs (1)

101-101: Review security implications of logging verifying keys.

Logging public keys at INFO level might expose sensitive information in logs. Consider:

  1. Logging at DEBUG level instead
  2. Logging only when explicitly configured
  3. Logging a hash or truncated version of the key

Comment on lines +40 to 46
let _verifying_key_algorithm =
CryptoAlgorithm::from_str(&config.verifying_key_algorithm).map_err(|_| {
Error::new(
ErrorKind::InvalidInput,
"invalid verifying key algorithm format",
)
})?;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Remove the underscore prefix from _verifying_key_algorithm.

The variable is marked as unused with an underscore prefix, but it's actually used in the code. This is misleading.

-            let _verifying_key_algorithm =
+            let verifying_key_algorithm =
                 CryptoAlgorithm::from_str(&config.verifying_key_algorithm).map_err(|_| {
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
let _verifying_key_algorithm =
CryptoAlgorithm::from_str(&config.verifying_key_algorithm).map_err(|_| {
Error::new(
ErrorKind::InvalidInput,
"invalid verifying key algorithm format",
)
})?;
let verifying_key_algorithm =
CryptoAlgorithm::from_str(&config.verifying_key_algorithm).map_err(|_| {
Error::new(
ErrorKind::InvalidInput,
"invalid verifying key algorithm format",
)
})?;

Copy link
Contributor

@distractedm1nd distractedm1nd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why is the handling different for light clients and full nodes?

@distractedm1nd
Copy link
Contributor

Done in #225

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