Open
Conversation
1f7feb6 to
035e536
Compare
Author
|
I can include a fix for #209 here too. |
6f19f9b to
223c020
Compare
And calculate it on the fly if needed.
This was referenced Dec 11, 2025
Open
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Based on top of #218
Type of PR:
Required reviews:
What this does:
Validatorstructures are transient; the RustValidatorimplsSerialize, but the serialization is not exposed in the bindings). If the user wants to associate addresses with validators, they can do it in their own code.mefromDkg. None of its methods besidecreate_shareones requireme, and the share creation ones already get the validator keypair, so we can locate the share index by the public key. (seems like it makesferveo-python/examples/exception.pymeaningless?)public_keyfield fromAggregatedTranscript(usepublic_key()method instead). Fixes api::AggregatedTranscript serialization issue in nucypher/nucypher #209