Skip to content

Bumped version of nostr sdk 40#95

Merged
grunch merged 1 commit into
developfrom
sdk-40-issue
Mar 24, 2025
Merged

Bumped version of nostr sdk 40#95
grunch merged 1 commit into
developfrom
sdk-40-issue

Conversation

@arkanoider

@arkanoider arkanoider commented Mar 23, 2025 •
edited by coderabbitai Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@grunch @Catrya ,

this, as usual, is neede to test mostro . This bumps mostro-core to nostr sdk 0.40 so it's ready also for the update of mostro-cli of @grunch .

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Upgraded a core dependency to a newer version for enhanced compatibility.
  • Refactor
    • Improved the message verification process to better handle edge cases during authentication.
    • Optimized the generation of content tags for increased consistency.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Mar 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Walkthrough

This pull request updates the nostr-sdk dependency in Cargo.toml from version "0.38.0" to "0.40.0". In addition, the verify_signature method in src/message.rs has been modified to first attempt converting the public key to an xonly key and then verify the signature, returning false if the conversion fails. The to_tags method in src/rating.rs now initializes the tags using Tags::from_list instead of Tags::new, changing the internal instantiation logic.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
Cargo.toml Updated nostr-sdk dependency version from "0.38.0" to "0.40.0".
src/message.rs Modified verify_signature: now converts the public key to an xonly key before verifying the signature, returning false if conversion fails.
src/rating.rs Updated to_tags method to use Tags::from_list for tag instantiation instead of Tags::new.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant M as Message
    participant P as PublicKey
    participant X as XOnlyKey

    M->>P: Attempt to convert pubkey to xonly key
    alt Conversion Successful
        note right of P: xonly conversion succeeded
        M->>X: Use xonly key for signature verification
        X-->>M: Return verification result
    else Conversion Failed
        note right of P: xonly conversion failed
        M->>M: Return false
    end
Loading

Suggested reviewers

  • Catrya
  • grunch

Poem

I'm a bunny with code so bright,
Hop-hopping through changes with delight.
Upgraded versions and tweaks so neat,
Logical hops and secret beats.
Celebrate the code, our changes complete! 🐇✨

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8a000c0 and 79959a3.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • Cargo.toml (1 hunks)
  • src/message.rs (1 hunks)
  • src/rating.rs (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
Cargo.toml (1)

35-35: Version update looks good

The upgrade from nostr-sdk 0.38.0 to 0.40.0 aligns with the PR objective. This change required corresponding updates to the API usage in other files.

src/rating.rs (1)

71-73: API update correctly implemented

The change from direct tag list usage to Tags::from_list() method is necessary for compatibility with nostr-sdk 0.40.0. This adjustment properly adapts to the updated API without changing the function's behavior.

src/message.rs (1)

208-212:

Details

✅ Verification successful

Improved signature verification with fallback handling

The implementation now handles the public key conversion to xonly format required by nostr-sdk 0.40.0. The code gracefully fails (returns false) when the conversion isn't possible instead of panicking.

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any direct usages of verify_signature in the codebase
# to ensure all callers handle the potential false return value correctly

rg -A 2 -B 2 "verify_signature" --type rust

Length of output: 558

Signature verification update approved

  • The updated implementation in src/message.rs now gracefully falls back by returning false when the xonly() conversion fails, avoiding any panics.
  • A repository-wide check confirmed that all call sites (e.g., in src/lib.rs) correctly handle the false return value from verify_signature.
  • No further modifications are needed.
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@arkanoider arkanoider changed the title ready to test with nostr sdk 40 Bumped version of nostr sdk 40 Mar 23, 2025
@arkanoider arkanoider requested review from Catrya and grunch March 23, 2025 19:18
@arkanoider arkanoider mentioned this pull request Mar 23, 2025
Merged
@grunch grunch merged commit 99107d9 into develop Mar 24, 2025
@grunch grunch deleted the sdk-40-issue branch April 22, 2026 20:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@grunch grunch grunch approved these changes

@Catrya Catrya Awaiting requested review from Catrya

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@arkanoider @grunch