Skip to content

feat(kms): Add KMS under beta #935

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.

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

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JanStern
Copy link

Description

relates to #934

KMS has been added to the CLI. Now the following commands exist:

  • key (create, delete, import, list, restore, rotate)
  • key ring (create, delete, list)
  • version (destroy, disable, enable, list, restore)
  • wrapping key (create, destroy, list)

Checklist

  • Issue was linked above
  • Code format was applied: make fmt
  • Examples were added / adjusted (see e.g. here)
  • Docs are up-to-date: make generate-docs (will be checked by CI)
  • Unit tests got implemented or updated
  • Unit tests are passing: make test (will be checked by CI)
  • No linter issues: make lint (will be checked by CI)

Important Decisions

The CLI implementation of KMS reflects the state of the API, which includes some seemingly unfinished decisions.

  1. The Region doesn't matter even though it exists: Every API Endpoint has the region as a required attribute. However, the value is currently meaningless. All requests have the same result no matter what the region is. Still I haven't removed/mocked the structure in the code since I assume that in the future KMS will be region specific.
  2. Backend is a fixed but required value: When creating a wrapped key or a key, backend is a required body parameter that is currently only "software". Here following the same argument as before I have made it a flag in anticipation of future updates.
  3. I recommend extra detail to Importing a Key: Following this example I experimented with the key importing and tried to import an invalid key. I did encode random text in base64 and it was accepted. It created a new key version but with the status "Errors existing", which feels wrong. Nonetheless, I don't think that the formatting checks in the CLI should be stricter. (I just wanted to draw attention to that)

Hope this actually helps and huge thanks to whomever tries to tackle this monster merge.

@JanStern JanStern requested a review from a team as a code owner August 23, 2025 22:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants