-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: fetch verification method types by proof type #913
feat: fetch verification method types by proof type #913
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you add tests for the added methods?
@TimoGlastra good catch, thanks. Time for a PR checklist.. I'll open a discussion about it. |
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ export interface SuiteInfo { | |||
suiteClass: typeof LinkedDataSignature | |||
proofType: string | |||
requiredKeyType: string | |||
keyType: string | |||
keyTypes: [KeyType] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be KeyType[]
. This actually means an array with one item of type KeyType
(you can use this to create tuple types)
keyTypes: [KeyType] | |
keyTypes: KeyType[] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm after thinking about it a bit more. This is the key type as we use it in the framework, but not the key as is used in did documents. Those key types are e.g. Ed25519Key2018 (or something like it). So we still have to make the transformation, but only the signature suites know which actual types is supports.
Should this be updated to include the supported key types as used by did documents? E.g. if the suites only supports 2018 and 2020 ed25519 keys and there's a new 2022 one that isn't supported we should only extract the 2018 and 2020 keys from the did document, as that's the only ones we can sign with.
65f8856
to
938a889
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM 👍. If you can resolve the conflicts we can merge
Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id>
Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id>
Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id>
Signed-off-by: Timo Glastra <timo@animo.id>
edf8cd8
to
f2b2082
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 0.3.0-pre #913 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 87.67% 87.64% -0.04%
=============================================
Files 574 574
Lines 13521 13539 +18
Branches 2190 2194 +4
=============================================
+ Hits 11855 11866 +11
- Misses 1662 1669 +7
Partials 4 4
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
BBS tests failing in Node.JS 17/18 But otherwise tests are passing. Merging |
Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id>
Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id>
Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id>
…ation#913) Signed-off-by: Karim <karim@animo.id> Signed-off-by: Ariel Gentile <gentilester@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Karim karim@animo.id