AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

fix(tests): fix Evolu tests on HW devices

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Martin Pastyřík

100/100 · Strong
fix(tests): fix Evolu tests on HW devices

Evolu tests now do not depend on hardocded values but compute the expected value from the `delegated_idenetity_key` of the tested device. Therefore enabling testing on HW devices where the master key is not initialized to all zeroes.

A check function was added to the `sign_registration` tests to determine if the device has Optiga available. If not, the test will mark itself as `xfail` - we expect Optiga signing to fail if there is no Optiga.

All the Evolu test have been simplified so that the logic is the same for THP and non-THP devices.

Lastly, the verification of certificate chain and Optiga and Tropic signatures and certificates has been refactored from `test_authenticate_device.py` as it is now used in other tests.

[no changelog]
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only changes test code for the Trezor hardware wallet. It refactors how tests compute expected cryptographic values so they can run on real hardware devices instead of only on emulators, and moves certificate-verification helper code into a shared test utility. There is no change to the actual firmware or wallet behavior, and no security vulnerability is introduced or fixed.

Recommended action

No security action required. This is a test-only refactoring commit. Reviewers may optionally verify that the new dynamic proof generation matches the protocol's expected signing format.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.