Handling missing branch for Email identity in match patterns

[silva-fj]

No description provided.

[silva-fj]

FYI this release branch was already broken, some changes related to Assertions:

https://github.com/litentry/litentry-parachain/actions/runs/10826722348/job/30038362291

I don't know what is missing, I have not checked the commit history

[Kailai-Wang]

I think the error reported it clearly:

#12 381.1 error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `&Assertion::LinkedIdentities` not covered
#12 381.1    --> /home/ubuntu/tee-worker/litentry/core/credentials/src/credential_schema.rs:27:8
#12 381.1     |
#12 381.1 27  |     match assertion {
#12 381.1     |           ^^^^^^^^^ pattern `&Assertion::LinkedIdentities` not covered
#12 381.1     |
#12 381.1 note: `Assertion` defined here
#12 381.1    --> /home/ubuntu/primitives/core/src/assertion/mod.rs:146:2
#12 381.1     |
#12 381.1 65  | pub enum Assertion {
#12 381.1     | ------------------
#12 381.1 ...
#12 381.1 146 |     LinkedIdentities,
#12 381.1     |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not covered
#12 381.1     = note: the matched value is of type `&Assertion`
#12 381.1 help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern or an explicit pattern as shown

[silva-fj]

I think the error reported it clearly:

#12 381.1 error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `&Assertion::LinkedIdentities` not covered
#12 381.1    --> /home/ubuntu/tee-worker/litentry/core/credentials/src/credential_schema.rs:27:8
#12 381.1     |
#12 381.1 27  |     match assertion {
#12 381.1     |           ^^^^^^^^^ pattern `&Assertion::LinkedIdentities` not covered
#12 381.1     |
#12 381.1 note: `Assertion` defined here
#12 381.1    --> /home/ubuntu/primitives/core/src/assertion/mod.rs:146:2
#12 381.1     |
#12 381.1 65  | pub enum Assertion {
#12 381.1     | ------------------
#12 381.1 ...
#12 381.1 146 |     LinkedIdentities,
#12 381.1     |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not covered
#12 381.1     = note: the matched value is of type `&Assertion`
#12 381.1 help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled by adding a match arm with a wildcard pattern or an explicit pattern as shown

Yep, what I meant is that I don't know the full context of these changes. In dev branch this variant is also not covered so I assume this is some work in progress (I don't know what the value for that schema should be)

[Kailai-Wang]

I think @higherordertech updated the release branch due to the same reason that you have - he wanted to update the primitives to include another entry (but probably only the enum itself, not the places where it's referenced, hence the error)

[BillyWooo]

The error is clear. But strange, why this #3042 passed.

[higherordertech]

I think @higherordertech updated the release branch due to the same reason that you have - he wanted to update the primitives to include another entry (but probably only the enum itself, not the places where it's referenced, hence the error)

Fixed now