-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 302
Add Channel Hash Utility to Node class #843
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
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c44f9b1
Add Channel Hash Utility to Node class
SpudGunMan d2d9c03
tidy up the autobot
SpudGunMan f6f1b74
hashGen fix
SpudGunMan 39c9864
move and rename hash function
SpudGunMan 471e3ce
generate_hash to util
SpudGunMan a17cfe9
rename to generate_channel_hash
SpudGunMan e924afd
Merge branch 'master' into channel-hash-info
ianmcorvidae 0e67ef3
Return hash from channel_hash function
ianmcorvidae ad04c26
split out constant, improve logic some, add tests for channel_hash an…
ianmcorvidae File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this looks good, but a few thoughts:
xor_hash, and a variable for the default key (asbytes, I think, rather than the base64 version) really all belong inmeshtastic.utilrather than here.channel_hash. If we later want to add the frequency-slot-style hash, better if it's distinguished better from the start.Union[str, bytes]and in the function body we can useisinstanceto determine if they need translation via something like:Hopefully these changes sound good to you. If possible I'd also love to see some tests for these functions added but I know I've already made several requests :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have some changes in as requested, looking at tests now something like ? (I didnt fully compute)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that sort of thing, though it could probably be more in-depth than that, ideally even using the
hypothesislibrary to do some property-based testing (but that's a bit complex to explain in a GitHub comment). I've got a little bit of time here, so I'll try to add some of these things while doing things already here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ad04c26 threw in a bunch here if you're curious what I was thinking of. Should be good to merge in a sec though, as long as CI doesn't complain again for some reason.