Skip to content

Conversation

@addaleax
Copy link
Member

@addaleax addaleax commented Feb 9, 2026

This hides a discrepancy between OpenSSL and BoringSSL, as the latter returns lowercase hex values.

Refs: #61459 (comment)

This hides a discrepancy between OpenSSL and BoringSSL, as
the latter returns lowercase hex values.

Refs: nodejs#61459 (comment)
@addaleax addaleax requested a review from codebytere February 9, 2026 14:12
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/crypto

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. crypto Issues and PRs related to the crypto subsystem. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. labels Feb 9, 2026
@addaleax addaleax added author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. labels Feb 9, 2026
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label Feb 9, 2026
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 9, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.73%. Comparing base (a8479a2) to head (c2c8497).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #61752      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.74%   89.73%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         675      675              
  Lines      204601   204601              
  Branches    39317    39314       -3     
==========================================
- Hits       183625   183601      -24     
- Misses      13240    13284      +44     
+ Partials     7736     7716      -20     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/crypto/crypto_x509.cc 73.08% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 43 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@ranjuhasankhan
Copy link

Nice

Copy link

@ranjuhasankhan ranjuhasankhan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Copy link
Member

@tniessen tniessen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe that the difference in behavior is due to BN_bn2hex, which ncrypto wraps in BignumPointer::toHex(). Maybe we should just wrap that call when Node.js is linked against BoringSSL?

@addaleax
Copy link
Member Author

addaleax commented Feb 9, 2026

@tniessen Yeah, I considered that too, but a) I didn't want to do this while the discussion in #61613 is alive and well and b) this is the only site where we expose this to users, and it's not obvious to me that we always care whether the call returns uppercase or lowercase hex?

But I'm not feeling particularly strongly about this, and I'm happy to make that change there as well (if you feel confident about the repo in which that should happen 😅 )

Copy link
Member

@tniessen tniessen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That works for me @addaleax :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. crypto Issues and PRs related to the crypto subsystem. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants