GeezerVison

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

bricss, jimmiehansson, ryzokuken, danilofuchs, and thibmeu reacted with thumbs up emoji

targos reviewed Jan 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the random-prime branch from cda64b6 to 6b49bc9 Compare January 22, 2021 19:29

tniessen reviewed Jan 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

tniessen requested changes Jan 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the random-prime branch 2 times, most recently from 688eeaa to f16510f Compare January 23, 2021 19:29

jasnell requested a review from tniessen January 23, 2021 19:54

jasnell force-pushed the random-prime branch from f16510f to 0e13f36 Compare January 23, 2021 21:14

jasnell force-pushed the random-prime branch from 0e13f36 to a21eb2f Compare January 24, 2021 17:16

jasnell requested a review from targos January 24, 2021 17:22

jasnell commented Jan 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

jasnell commented Jan 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the random-prime branch 2 times, most recently from 17e8dd6 to 6ce845a Compare January 25, 2021 15:28

tniessen reviewed Jan 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the random-prime branch from cc70379 to 00f5546 Compare January 25, 2021 23:05

jasnell requested a review from tniessen January 25, 2021 23:06

tniessen approved these changes Jan 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

APIs for generating and checking pseudo-random primes

Signed-off-by: James M Snell <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #36997
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>

APIs for generating and checking pseudo-random primes

Signed-off-by: James M Snell <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #36997
Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]>

Notable changes:

crypto:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add generatePrime/checkPrime (James M Snell) #36997
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) experimental (Ed/X)25519/(Ed/X)448 support (James M Snell) #36879
deps:
  * upgrade npm to 7.5.0 (Ruy Adorno) #37117
dgram:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) support AbortSignal in createSocket (Nitzan Uziely) #37026
doc:
  * add Zijian Liu to collaborators (ZiJian Liu) #37075
esm:
  * deprecate legacy main lookup for modules (Guy Bedford) #36918
readline:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add history event and option to set initial history (Mattias Runge-Broberg) #33662
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add support for the AbortController to the question method (Mattias Runge-Broberg) #33676

PR-URL: #37183

Notable changes:

crypto:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add generatePrime/checkPrime (James M Snell) #36997
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) experimental (Ed/X)25519/(Ed/X)448 support (James M Snell) #36879
deps:
  * upgrade npm to 7.5.0 (Ruy Adorno) #37117
dgram:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) support AbortSignal in createSocket (Nitzan Uziely) #37026
doc:
  * add Zijian Liu to collaborators (ZiJian Liu) #37075
esm:
  * deprecate legacy main lookup for modules (Guy Bedford) #36918
readline:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add history event and option to set initial history (Mattias Runge-Broberg) #33662
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add support for the AbortController to the question method (Mattias Runge-Broberg) #33676

PR-URL: #37183

Notable changes:

crypto:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add generatePrime/checkPrime (James M Snell) #36997
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) experimental (Ed/X)25519/(Ed/X)448 support (James M Snell) #36879
deps:
  * upgrade npm to 7.5.0 (Ruy Adorno) #37117
dgram:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) support AbortSignal in createSocket (Nitzan Uziely) #37026
doc:
  * add Zijian Liu to collaborators (ZiJian Liu) #37075
esm:
  * deprecate legacy main lookup for modules (Guy Bedford) #36918
readline:
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add history event and option to set initial history (Mattias Runge-Broberg) #33662
  * (SEMVER-MINOR) add support for the AbortController to the question method (Mattias Runge-Broberg) #33676

PR-URL: #37183

This test had two problems:

* The first argument was a number in both cases, which is what caused
  the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error -- the validity of the
  'checks' option was not actually verified at all. Thus, the first
  argument should be valid for this particular test.
* The function returned by common.mustNotCall() was passed to
  assert.throws() as a third argument instead of being passed to
  checkPrime() as a third argument. (Isn't JavaScript great?) This again
  led to the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error, but again, the
  validity of the 'checks' option was not verified.

Fix both issues by ensuring that all arguments except the 'checks'
option are valid.

Refs: nodejs#36997

This test had two problems:

* The first argument was a number in both cases, which is what caused
  the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error -- the validity of the
  'checks' option was not actually verified at all. Thus, the first
  argument should be valid for this particular test.
* The function returned by common.mustNotCall() was passed to
  assert.throws() as a third argument instead of being passed to
  checkPrime() as a third argument. (Isn't JavaScript great?) This again
  led to the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error, but again, the
  validity of the 'checks' option was not verified.

Fix both issues by ensuring that all arguments except the 'checks'
option are valid.

Refs: #36997
PR-URL: #47139
Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>

This test had two problems:

* The first argument was a number in both cases, which is what caused
  the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error -- the validity of the
  'checks' option was not actually verified at all. Thus, the first
  argument should be valid for this particular test.
* The function returned by common.mustNotCall() was passed to
  assert.throws() as a third argument instead of being passed to
  checkPrime() as a third argument. (Isn't JavaScript great?) This again
  led to the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error, but again, the
  validity of the 'checks' option was not verified.

Fix both issues by ensuring that all arguments except the 'checks'
option are valid.

Refs: #36997
PR-URL: #47139
Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>

This test had two problems:

* The first argument was a number in both cases, which is what caused
  the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error -- the validity of the
  'checks' option was not actually verified at all. Thus, the first
  argument should be valid for this particular test.
* The function returned by common.mustNotCall() was passed to
  assert.throws() as a third argument instead of being passed to
  checkPrime() as a third argument. (Isn't JavaScript great?) This again
  led to the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error, but again, the
  validity of the 'checks' option was not verified.

Fix both issues by ensuring that all arguments except the 'checks'
option are valid.

Refs: #36997
PR-URL: #47139
Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>

This test had two problems:

* The first argument was a number in both cases, which is what caused
  the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error -- the validity of the
  'checks' option was not actually verified at all. Thus, the first
  argument should be valid for this particular test.
* The function returned by common.mustNotCall() was passed to
  assert.throws() as a third argument instead of being passed to
  checkPrime() as a third argument. (Isn't JavaScript great?) This again
  led to the (expected) ERR_INVALID_ARG_TYPE error, but again, the
  validity of the 'checks' option was not verified.

Fix both issues by ensuring that all arguments except the 'checks'
option are valid.

Refs: #36997
PR-URL: #47139
Reviewed-By: Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>