Skip to content

chore: bump de-mls and adapt group_v2 to the new API#153

Open
seemenkina wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
seemenkina/update_de_mls
Open

chore: bump de-mls and adapt group_v2 to the new API#153
seemenkina wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
seemenkina/update_de_mls

Conversation

@seemenkina

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Updates group_v2 to the latest de-mls.

de-mls reshaped its construction surface: key packages are now raw bytes plus an explicit member id (it no longer digs the id out of the package itself), the steward-list bounds moved into ConversationConfig, and create/join/add_member and the other driving methods regrouped their parameters.

Behaviour is unchanged; this is keeping up with the dependency.

@seemenkina seemenkina requested a review from jazzz June 25, 2026 18:19

@jazzz jazzz left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall loving this direction. Smaller, cleaner, and easier to use.

Comment on lines +56 to +57
fn make_consensus() -> DefaultConsensusPlugin {
DefaultConsensusPlugin::new(EthereumConsensusSigner::new(PrivateKeySigner::random()))

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[?] In the future should the consensus signer match the MLS Signer? Or is it best to keep it separate?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Comment on lines +56 to +57
fn make_consensus() -> DefaultConsensusPlugin {
DefaultConsensusPlugin::new(EthereumConsensusSigner::new(PrivateKeySigner::random()))

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[?] It is safe to assume in the future that any implementor of ConsensusSignatureScheme would suffice here? Or is there a strict dependence on secp256K1 or the ethAddress format?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No strict dependency anymore. At least I tried implementing general trait based on this idea, so if you find any contradictions let me know

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants