Skip to content

Add CERT_STATUS_RENEWAL_PENDING to distinguish in-progress certificate renewals#140

Merged
rene merged 2 commits intolf-edge:mainfrom
milan-zededa:cert-renewal-pending
Mar 4, 2026
Merged

Add CERT_STATUS_RENEWAL_PENDING to distinguish in-progress certificate renewals#140
rene merged 2 commits intolf-edge:mainfrom
milan-zededa:cert-renewal-pending

Conversation

@milan-zededa
Copy link
Contributor

Introduce a new CertStatus enum value CERT_STATUS_RENEWAL_PENDING to clearly
differentiate between certificates that are pending initial enrollment
(CERT_STATUS_PENDING) and certificates that are already present and still
valid but undergoing renewal.

…e renewals

Introduce a new CertStatus enum value CERT_STATUS_RENEWAL_PENDING to clearly
differentiate between certificates that are pending initial enrollment
(CERT_STATUS_PENDING) and certificates that are already present and still
valid but undergoing renewal.

Signed-off-by: Milan Lenco <milan@zededa.com>
No functional changes; generated code and assets only.

Signed-off-by: Milan Lenco <milan@zededa.com>
CERT_STATUS_PENDING = 2;
// Certificate is present and still valid, but a renewal request
// is in progress and not yet completed.
CERT_STATUS_RENEWAL_PENDING = 3;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These Yetus errors are relevant, you are breaking old clients by shifting the numbers, I think in this case is better to just append the new value (CERT_STATUS_RENEWAL_PENDING), is there any major drawback to do so?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The SCEP-support is still a work-in-progress on both EVE and the controller side. No released (or even upstream-merged) code is yet using this enum (or anything in this proto file). That's why I'm ignoring these Yetus errors (sorry, forgot to mention this in the PR description).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ha.... ok, it makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Copy link
Contributor

@eriknordmark eriknordmark left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@rene rene merged commit 2a09c49 into lf-edge:main Mar 4, 2026
3 of 4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants