Skip to content

Version 4.0.0#45

Merged
Eastrall merged 14 commits intomainfrom
wip/v4
Jan 18, 2023
Merged

Version 4.0.0#45
Eastrall merged 14 commits intomainfrom
wip/v4

Conversation

@Eastrall
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Eastrall Eastrall commented Nov 1, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Version 4.0.0

Added

Changes

⚠️ BREAKING CHANGE ⚠️

  • Changed IEncryptionProvider interface to be simpler to use:
    • byte[] Encrypt(byte[] input) instead of TStore Encrypt<TStore, TModel>(TModel dataToEncrypt, Func<TModel, byte[]> converter, Func<Stream, TStore> encoder);
    • byte[] Decrypt(byte[] input) instead of TModel Decrypt<TStore, TModel>(TStore dataToDecrypt, Func<TStore, byte[]> decoder, Func<Stream, TModel> converter);

Other changes

  • Add GitHub action support with build matrix (.NET Core 3.1, .NET 5, .NET 6, .NET 7)
  • Update README.md documentation for creating a custom encryption provider. (Pleas update docs for IEncryptionProvider #37)
  • Update projects to C# 10 and file scoped namespaces

Removals

⚠️ BREAKING CHANGE ⚠️

  • Removing constructor AesProvider(byte[] key, CipherMode mode = CipherMode.CBC, PaddingMode padding = PaddingMode.PKCS7) on AesProvider.
  • Removed dynamic IV support.
    • To add dynamic IV support, you will have to create your own encryption provider.
  • Removed Data Migration support.

Other removals

  • Remove AzureDevOps pipelines.

@Eastrall Eastrall added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 1, 2022
@codecov-commenter
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov-commenter commented Nov 1, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@de814ed). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #45   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   94.36%           
=======================================
  Files           ?        6           
  Lines           ?      142           
  Branches        ?       28           
=======================================
  Hits            ?      134           
  Misses          ?        3           
  Partials        ?        5

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

@Eastrall Eastrall mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2022
Closed
sominola
sominola reviewed Dec 6, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@sominola sominola left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

)

Uli-Armbruster
Uli-Armbruster approved these changes Jan 11, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Uli-Armbruster Uli-Armbruster left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good to me. can you ship this?

@Eastrall
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Eastrall commented Jan 12, 2023

@Uli-Armbruster I need to run some more tests for byte[] encryption as a Base64 string, I noticed that V3.X has a major issue with this scenario. Encryption process goes well, but decryption process adds some extra 0 bytes to the original value, and unfortunatly there nothing I can do about it. So, I will most likely drop the support for encrypting a byte[] as a Base64 string.

I'll keep you updated on this.

@Uli-Armbruster
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Uli-Armbruster commented Jan 13, 2023

@Uli-Armbruster I need to run some more tests for byte[] encryption as a Base64 string, I noticed that V3.X has a major issue with this scenario. Encryption process goes well, but decryption process adds some extra 0 bytes to the original value, and unfortunatly there nothing I can do about it. So, I will most likely drop the support for encrypting a byte[] as a Base64 string.

I'll keep you updated on this.

For my understanding: When I have an Entity with a property of type byte[], then there would be under certain circumstances failures in encryption since extra 0 bytes are added?

@Eastrall Eastrall merged commit 0beb736 into main Jan 18, 2023
@Eastrall Eastrall deleted the wip/v4 branch January 18, 2023 20:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

3 more reviewers

@sominola sominola sominola left review comments

@Uli-Armbruster Uli-Armbruster Uli-Armbruster approved these changes

@DerStimmler DerStimmler DerStimmler approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@Eastrall @codecov-commenter @Uli-Armbruster @DerStimmler @sominola