Project

General

Profile

Bug #8042

expose lasso_provider_verify_signature()

Added by Florian Best about 4 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:
Nouveau
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Core
Target version:
Start date:
12 Aug 2015
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Patch proposed:
Yes
Planning:
No

Description

The function expose lasso_provider_verify_signature() is currently not exposed in the symbol table.
As projects like crudesaml (http://ftp.espci.fr/pub/crudesaml/README) uses this function it would be nice to expose it.
The attached patch does this.

lasso.patch View (2.83 KB) Florian Best, 12 Aug 2015 03:47 PM

History

#1 Updated by Florian Best about 4 years ago

I just found a related problem: http://www.sogo.nu/bugs/view.php?id=2958

#2 Updated by Benjamin Dauvergne almost 4 years ago

  • Target version set to future

#3 Updated by Benjamin Dauvergne almost 4 years ago

  • Target version changed from future to 2.5.1

#4 Updated by Benjamin Dauvergne almost 4 years ago

Did you test your patch ? It seems to me that for supporting the xmlDoc type in the bindings (there are more than one, your patch lacks Perl, Java and PHP support) a lot more has to be done. There should be at least a conversion function from string to xmlDoc (as there is one from string to xmlNode).

#6 Updated by Benjamin Dauvergne almost 4 years ago

To integrate this patch I'll need to know the author and he must state that the patch is contributed under the MIT license (it's our policy to keep our capacity to relicense Lasso).

#7 Updated by Florian Best almost 4 years ago

Yes, I can't speak french but from what https://wiki.auf.org/wikiteki/Projet/SOGo/TestsSAML?action=info says it seems the patch is created by https://wiki.auf.org/wikiteki/MoussaNombr%C3%A9?action=show&redirect=MoussaNombre
I send a message to this email address hoping that it exists and he/she will release the patch under MIT license.

#8 Updated by Benjamin Dauvergne over 3 years ago

  • Target version changed from 2.5.1 to future

#9 Updated by Florian Best over 3 years ago

Nobody is answering, it seems not possible to contact the owner of the patch. Is it really a so hard issue to just "reimplement" these some lines?

#10 Updated by Benjamin Dauvergne over 3 years ago

Maybe not, try it :)

Also available in: Atom PDF