Skip to content

docs: add XML documentation for CMS recipient types (Batch 14a) - #698

Open
KonradSop wants to merge 2 commits into
bcgit:masterfrom
KonradSop:feature/cms-recipient-docs
Open

docs: add XML documentation for CMS recipient types (Batch 14a)#698
KonradSop wants to merge 2 commits into
bcgit:masterfrom
KonradSop:feature/cms-recipient-docs

Conversation

@KonradSop

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Adds XML documentation to the CMS recipient-information API used to identify
recipients and recover encrypted CMS content:

  • RecipientInformation — base-class workflow, recipient identifier,
    key-encryption algorithm, complete-content convenience method, and content
    stream method.
  • RecipientId — recipient matching by issuer/serial number, subject key
    identifier, or KEK key identifier; documents equality semantics.
  • Key transport, key agreement, KEK, and password recipients — class
    summaries and GetContentStream contracts, including required key material,
    returned stream, and implementation-backed exceptions.

A separate preceding commit performs whitespace-only normalization in
RecipientId.cs and KEKRecipientInformation.cs, as required by the
repository contribution rules.

Key Accomplishments

  • CMS recipient discoverability: IDE tooltips now explain how to select a
    recipient and provide the appropriate private, shared, or password-based key.
  • Accurate contracts: stream-return and exception documentation follows
    the actual key-recovery implementations.
  • Focused scope: six CMS recipient API files only; no behavioural or
    signature changes.
  • Documentation quality: all new or modified XML documentation lines are
    at most 120 characters.

Verification

  • Build Status: dotnet build crypto/src/BouncyCastle.Crypto.csproj -c Release
    — 0 errors.
  • Review: independent diff review completed; one RecipientId description
    omission was corrected before commit.
  • Scope: documentation and a separate mechanical whitespace cleanup only.

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have kept the patch limited to only change the parts related to the patch
  • This change requires a documentation update

See also Contributing Guidelines.

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.

1 participant