-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
fix: have export call encrypt instead of encapsulate #2709
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
fix: have export call encrypt instead of encapsulate #2709
Conversation
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @strantalis, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request addresses a functional correction in the key export mechanism, ensuring that the appropriate encryption method is utilized. It also introduces a safeguard to protect the integrity of sensitive key data during export operations, thereby enhancing the overall security and reliability of the key management process.
Highlights
- Corrected Encryption Method Call: The
Export
method withinAESProtectedKey
now correctly invokes theEncrypt
method on theEncapsulator
interface instead ofEncapsulate
, aligning with the intended encryption process for key data. - Enhanced Key Data Safety: A defensive copy of the raw key data (
k.rawKey
) is now created before being passed to theEncrypt
method. This prevents potential unintended modifications to the original key material during the export process. - Test Suite Alignment: The
mockEncapsulator
in the test suite has been updated to reflect the change in method invocation, switching fromencapsulateFunc
toencryptFunc
, ensuring the tests accurately validate the new behavior.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Key bytes now secured,Encrypt's call, a safer path,Data flows with grace.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
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.
Code Review
This pull request refactors AESProtectedKey.Export
to use encapsulator.Encrypt
instead of encapsulator.Encapsulate
. This change improves decoupling by passing the raw key data directly, rather than the ProtectedKey
object. The implementation correctly creates a defensive copy of the key before encryption. The corresponding unit test is also updated appropriately. The changes are sound and I have no further recommendations.
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'm guessing this is to enable other Encapsulator
s (than OCEncapsulator
) to work with AESProtectedKey
type keys? At first it seemed to me that you should first try down-casting to OCEncapsulator
and using its Encapsulate
method, then using Encrypt
only if that doesn't work, if only to make it clear when the rawKey escapes 'our' code, but that just seems like this with extra steps, so this is fine.
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- ## [0.6.0](lib/ocrypto/v0.5.0...lib/ocrypto/v0.6.0) (2025-09-11) ### Bug Fixes * have export call encrypt instead of encapsulate ([#2709](#2709)) ([cdff893](cdff893)) --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please). Co-authored-by: opentdf-automation[bot] <149537512+opentdf-automation[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Proposed Changes
Checklist
Testing Instructions