[PM-27278] add AccountKeysRequestModel to RegisterFinishRequestModel for account encryption v2 support#6798
Open
[PM-27278] add AccountKeysRequestModel to RegisterFinishRequestModel for account encryption v2 support#6798
Conversation
…ed up reference to master password hash
…d more comments and fixed up some long lines.
…unts controller no longer nullish allowed.
…e thrown error messages more appropriate
…tModel.cs Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…ed comments for tests.
…t additions to make sure properties that were once required are still required.
…ted tests and added comments for the future.
…ed new checks from review.
…tModel.cs Co-authored-by: Maciej Zieniuk <[email protected]>
…d new checks for master password authentication data.
…ved invalid check.
…fled around validation checks to the request model instead of the controller.
…Added comments to clarify how these data types should be used.
…Updated docs around the validation
…Removed troublesome null safeguarding.
…Removed debug file.
…Fixed error in register finish model validation.
…ed accounts controller tests.
…essed concerns from reviewer.
…d up tests a little more.
…ed validation tests and ToUser no longer throws bad request.
…ressed feedback and added tests.
…epts-new-data-types
…ressed more feedback. No longer overriding the master password hash.
Base automatically changed from
auth/pm-27084/register-accepts-new-data-types
to
main
January 15, 2026 20:55
…epts-new-data-types-repush
…d constant for feature flag.
64585b7 to
2a7a753
Compare
…for account encryption v2 support
2a7a753 to
c026649
Compare
Contributor
|
Claude finished @eligrubb's task in 2m 13s —— View job Code Review Summary: PR #6798PM-27278 add AccountKeysRequestModel to RegisterFinishRequestModel for account encryption v2 support OverviewThis PR introduces V2 account encryption support for user registration. The changes allow the Key Changes Reviewed
Review ResultAPPROVED - The implementation is well-structured and maintains backward compatibility. Positive Observations
Test Coverage NoteWhile codecov reports low coverage, the PR includes unit tests in:
Reviewed with Claude Code |
|
Base automatically changed from
auth/pm-27084/register-accepts-new-data-types-repush
to
main
February 4, 2026 15:04
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.



🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-27278
Stacks on top of #6855.
📔 Objective
Deprecating V1 User Asymmetric Key information in favor of new V2 User Asymmetric Account Keys structure.
This PR adds support for the new
AccountKeysstructure while maintaining support for the legacyUserAsymmetricKey-based flow. Validation is updated to check eitherAccountKeysorUserAsymmetricKeysare updated. Tests include modeling for both scenarios.📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:) or similar for great changes:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info:question:) for questions:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:) for suggestions / improvements:x:) or:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes