lgen | Generate boilerplates for layered architecture | Architecture library

First, the signer is looking for any sign-capable key, but the verifier is looking for any encrypt-capable key. Depending on how and when you generated your key(s), these may not be the same: it has been considered good practice, and the default for at least two decades, to use a subkey for encryption (only) -- and sometimes also a different subkey for data signing (only, leaving the the masterkey for key-signing aka 'certifying' only). But it is technically possible to have an RSA masterkey with capability for both data-sign and encrypt (and optionally also certify, though it goes unused); in GPG this can be done by generating in 'expert' mode, or in recent versions by editting after generation. Since you don't show us details of your secret/private key(s) -- and shouldn't unless these are test-only key(s) you can afford to compromise -- it's impossible to tell your case. If you are actually using different keys to try to sign and verify then of course it couldn't ever work right.

In general the recipient should use the key specified by the keyid in the message: a sender encrypts using any encrypt-capable publickey, identifies that key in the message, and the receiver decrypts using the privatekey half of the key chosen by the sender; a sender signs using any sign-capable privatekey, identifies that key in the message, and the receiver verifies using the publickey half of the key chosen by the sender. This will require reorganizing your code to choose the verify key only after reading the signature packet. For now I just added a check in verifyFile that sig.getKeyID() == publicKey.getKeyID() .

That leaves the more serious error in your data handling in signFile

First of all I believe multiprocessing.ThreadPool is a private API so you should avoid it. Now multiprocessing.dummy is a useless module. It does not do any multithreading/processing that's why you don't see any benefit. You should use the "plain" multiprocessing module.

The second code does not work because it is using multiple processes. Processes do not share memory, so the changes you do in a subprocess are not reflected in the other subprocesses or the main process. You either want to:

• Return the value and combine them together in the main process, for example using multiprocessing.Pool.map
• Use threading instead of multiprocessing: just replaceimport multiprocessingwithimport threadingandmultiprocessing.Processwiththreading.Thread` and the code should work.

Note that the threading version will work only because numpy releases the GIL during computations, otherwise it would be stuck at 1 CPU.

You may want to look at this similar question which I answered a couple of minutes ago.

You can extend your existing query with another sub-query as follows.

I came up with another approach. Instead of doing everything at once you can break it down to smaller pieces and operate on the HList with a different approach.

Let's create a type class for the inner representation:

The problem with this code is the member

Assuming your type for lazy lists is something like this:

Your links object is a list of sets, which you can iterate over using nested for-loops:

Assuming that your original source file is a Oracle Pro*C .pc file, the error means that Pro*C could not find your include file. If you have no FATAL error below caused by this, the PCC-S-02015 error is in fact a simple warning. The precompiler warns you that it has found an include directive that it could not process, so it leave it untouched in the generated .cpp file. In that case, it will be correctly processed by the next build step.

The problem if often that you use later a symbol defined in one of those include files (mainly a typedef or equivalent macro definition of a type) that leads to a fatal compilation error.

In that case you have to declare the include folders in the pcscfg.cfg file located at $ORACLE_HOME/precomp/admin or include on the command line when invoking proc.

Ref: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/09/msg00273.html - it is about Debian but describes an equivalent problem.

I've tested your code

Encrypt & signed some of my text file then decrypt it back.

then I've also got a error message when decryption.

The message was -