#439 - Turned authorization property from a JWS into a container object
#518
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
thehenrytsai
requested review from
mistermoe,
csuwildcat and
diehuxx
as code owners
Review or Edit in CodeSandboxOpen the branch in Web Editor • VS Code • Insiders |
diehuxx
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2023
diehuxx
pushed a commit
to flothjl/dwn-sdk-js
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2023
* main: decentralized-identity#439 - Return `authorization` in queries and reads (decentralized-identity#523) decentralized-identity#439 - Turned `authorization` property from a JWS into a container object (decentralized-identity#518) npm audit fix get-func-name (decentralized-identity#521)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is the first PR for #439, where the
authorizationproperty in a DWN message is becoming an object with potentially multiple JWS.Calling out that this wrapping will be useful for the likes of
RecordsWritebut useless for ~dozen interface methods as they will just haveauthorand not haveretainer/tenantproperty in theauthorization. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but just want to call out for awareness for reviewers.Also as I worked on this PR, I can't help yet again having doubts on the scope of "independent verifiability" and its impact on the DWN design throughout, specifically on the reliance of being able to verify signatures of others, but that's something requiring further articulation!