-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
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
Add feature for renaming and deleting aids #241
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #241 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.88% 82.94% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 46 46
Lines 4212 4217 +5
Branches 1040 1041 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 3491 3498 +7
- Misses 692 694 +2
+ Partials 29 25 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
integrations test will fail until KERIA PR is merged |
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.
Nice!
Open question... since we are changing the API anyways. Is there currently any benefit of using the event type as an object field key rather than just relying on the event payload t
property? I'll illustrate with an example what I mean:
Currently:
POST /identifiers/name/events
{
"rot": { ...rot payload },
"sigs": [...sigs]
}
POST /identifiers/name/events
{
"ixn": { ...ixn payload },
"sigs": [...sigs]
}
Rather than:
POST /identifiers/name/events
{
"event": { t: "rot/ixn", ...rot/ixn payload },
"sigs": [...sigs]
}
The switch on backend would be to check body.event.t === "ixn" or body.event.t === "rot"
.
@rodolfomiranda There is something wrong after the upgrade to 0.2.0-dev0. I tried to debug the multisig-vlei test and found that after the client of GAR1 resolves the oobi for the multisig QVI aid, they still don't have the QVI aid in the contact list. To get this merged we need to figure out what the problem is there. Perhaps it would be better to create a separate PR for just the upgrade to 0.2.0-dev0. |
@rodolfomiranda Did a little bit more digging, and what we get back from the long running operation for resolving the QVI AID is just ({ oobi: "oobi url" }), rather than the expected response of the current state of the contact. This only happens here: https://github.com/WebOfTrust/keria/blob/7ee5ba84c9aed5d2d21fa48d8241d39b06aadb93/src/keria/core/longrunning.py#L239, which only happens if the |
I've been debugging a lot and saw the same but also found that the problem starts to happens after a new I think it's related to the changes that were applied in |
Cross posting for visibility. There are probably more issues then. In #252, I managed to reproduce a similar situtation for single sig only, where the problem is that a delegator cannot resolve an oobi of the delegatee. |
@rodolfomiranda I believe this has been superseded by a bunch of other merged PRs now. Should we close this one? |
PR that follows KERIA PR #218