Update secp256k1 dependency #875
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
I don't think we need to wait for rust-bitcoin/rust-secp256k1#417 or its corresponding release, since we don't use ECDH here. It'd be fine to set our Cargo.toml to 0.22.0, and users will automatically get 0.22.1 when it comes out. |
|
Good thinking, done. (Updated the dev-dependency as well ... and actually build the code. :) |
Update our `rust-secp256k1` dependency to the latest version. Requires doing: - Add a new variant to `Error` for the case where parity of the internal key is an invalid value (not 0 or 1). - Use non-deprecated const
apoelstra
approved these changes
Mar 11, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Update our
rust-secp256k1dependency to the latest released version.Requires doing:
Errorfor the case where parity of the internal key is an invalid value (not 0 or 1).Please check the error change carefully, this error does relate only to the parity of an internal key, right?