Skip to content

Look into ways to cross-verify implementation #34

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
pipermerriam opened this issue Dec 10, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

Look into ways to cross-verify implementation #34

pipermerriam opened this issue Dec 10, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@pipermerriam
Copy link
Member

What is wrong?

#24 (comment)

This is a little frightening (no blame intended). It would be great if we could come up with a way to cross check this implementation with a known good one or at least to have some additional static test vectors we could test against.

How can it be fixed

Look into what other implementations exist and how we could use them in a CI environment or manually extract some test vectors from them.
@Bhargavasomu
Copy link
Contributor

I'd say https://github.com/adjoint-io/pairing could be a good start.

@carver
Copy link
Collaborator

carver commented Jan 21, 2019

Related: #7

pacrob added a commit to pacrob/py_ecc that referenced this issue Oct 29, 2023
@pacrob
Various template default updates (ethereum#74)
ffd6ad8 
* bump versions in dependencies and ci builds

* move tox to [dev] per issue ethereum#34

* move RTD deps pointer into .readthedocs.yml

* unpin flake8 add flake8-bugbear to lint deps
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@carver @pipermerriam @Bhargavasomu