On 2024-09-08 at 23:36:36, Jeff King wrote: > Is this a direction that we were going to go in, but ultimately didn't? > Or is it something that just hasn't yet been fully implemented? I had not intended to add more functionality here. I don't recall what I was doing, but I think we either needed to parse this for some set of atoms somewhere or I had intended to replace all callers with `parse_signature` instead of `parse_signed_buffer`. I remember briefly working on this code and that it was a bear to get working, but not anything more than that. > We still separately find the start of the in-body signature and return a > "size_t nonsiglen", though it's a bit awkward (it's counting from the > body start, and I am coming from the subject start, but if we assume > they're contiguous, it's just a little pointer math). So if this > approach is still useful in the long run, I can work around it. But my > initial approach (before digging in the history) was to drop the > separate buffer, something like the patch below, since it also drops > some useless extra copying of the tag contents. It was probably that this code was to fix one or more of the signature-related atoms in the tests, but I can't speak to it more than that. I trust that you'll make a suitable change that fixes the issue, but I'm afraid I can't be more help than that. -- brian m. carlson (they/them or he/him) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
