Repository navigation
feature: Signer.create taking a JOSE.JWK - #448
Merged
victorolinasc merged 1 commit intoAug 20, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Sorry for the delay! It seems fair enough to add this :) I will take it for a spin tomorrow and come back to report. In any case, thanks for the contribution |
victorolinasc
approved these changes
Aug 20, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Adds support for passing a pre-parsed %JOSE.JWK{} directly to Joken.Signer.create/2, avoiding unnecessary re-parsing of the original JWK map.
Addresses #294.
This does not validate algorithm/key compatibility during signer creation (mentioned as a requirement in the issue discussion). That matches existing behavior: for example, Joken.Signer.create("ES256", rsa_jwk_map) already creates a signer, with the mismatch failing during verification. I think compatibility validation could be added separately and should not block this.