feat: initial revocation service added

[nitin-vavdiya]

Description

A verifiable credential revocation service is added.
This is a reference implementation of Verifiable Credentials Status List v2021

Why

In the current application implementation, we cannot issue credentials that can be revoked.

What

Revocation service added to support revocable credentials.
The issuer can revoke an issued credential and check the revocation status of issued credentials.

This is ref. implementation of Verifiable Credentials Status List v2021

This is originally developed at Cofinity-X

Thanks, @mustafasalfiti and @PManaras for initial contribution.

Ref:

Pre-review checks

Please ensure to do as many of the following checks as possible, before asking for committer review:

• DEPENDENCIES are up-to-date. Dash license tool. Committers can open IP issues for restricted libs.
• Copyright and license header are present on all affected files

[github-advanced-security]

KICS found more than 20 potential problems in the proposed changes. Check the Files changed tab for more details.

[borisrizov-zf]

Merged #318, you'll need to rebase at some point.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
33 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.5% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[evegufy]

Hi @nitin-vavdiya
did you notice that the contribution #317 is much to huge? (max. 1,000 lines of content (including documentation, code, configuration files, and other forms of source code, see https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-project-content). I don't think it's reasonable that someone would be able to review such a huge PR.

[nitin-vavdiya]

Hi @nitin-vavdiya did you notice that the contribution #317 is much to huge? (max. 1,000 lines of content (including documentation, code, configuration files, and other forms of source code, see https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-project-content). I don't think it's reasonable that someone would be able to review such a huge PR.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya did you notice that the contribution #317 is much to huge? (max. 1,000 lines of content (including documentation, code, configuration files, and other forms of source code, see https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-project-content). I don't think it's reasonable that someone would be able to review such a huge PR.

Yes, this is a huge PR as this contains the entire revocation application(APIs, test cases, docs etc) if we push partial changes then the test/checks will not pass or not meet the TRGs(specially document and chart related)
We need an IP review/check for this PR.

[evegufy]

Hi @nitin-vavdiya did you notice that the contribution #317 is much to huge? (max. 1,000 lines of content (including documentation, code, configuration files, and other forms of source code, see https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-project-content). I don't think it's reasonable that someone would be able to review such a huge PR.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya did you notice that the contribution #317 is much to huge? (max. 1,000 lines of content (including documentation, code, configuration files, and other forms of source code, see https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-project-content). I don't think it's reasonable that someone would be able to review such a huge PR.

Yes, this is a huge PR as this contains the entire revocation application(APIs, test cases, docs etc) if we push partial changes then the test/checks will not pass or not meet the TRGs(specially document and chart related) We need an IP review/check for this PR.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya very good that you're aware that you need to request an ad hoc IP review in such a case.
Still, please keep in mind the following in mind, especially for future contributions: the measure of an ad hoc IP review should be used in extraordinary cases when it it is really not possible to remain under 1000 lines. I'd argue that the api implementation and the according tests could have been tailored and therefore contributed in multiple contributions but especially no TRG promotes huge contributions, they actually promote the contrary, for instance the documentation and the helm chart can be contributed in different pull requests, no TRG requires you otherwise.

Hi @borisrizov-zf, as product expert and committer besides @nitin-vavdiya, are you confident in reviewing this PR?

[borisrizov-zf]

@evegufy Yes, I'm aware of the size, but since @nitin-vavdiya is a committer, the 1000 lines limit doesn't apply. The review is ongoing, I anticipate no issues to be honest since this code has been tested and used by Cofinity-X.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
19 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.4% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

limiting review to comments

[evegufy]

@evegufy Yes, I'm aware of the size, but since @nitin-vavdiya is a committer, the 1000 lines limit doesn't apply. The review is ongoing, I anticipate no issues to be honest since this code has been tested and used by Cofinity-X.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya @borisrizov-zf as you're contributing the developments to developers which are not committers, I''ll still recommend to initiate an IP review. I explained the process here. Normally the Eclipse Foundation takes of IP reviews quite fast (if it's not in the midst of vacation season), I've seen some processed even within a day.

[nitin-vavdiya]

@evegufy Yes, I'm aware of the size, but since @nitin-vavdiya is a committer, the 1000 lines limit doesn't apply. The review is ongoing, I anticipate no issues to be honest since this code has been tested and used by Cofinity-X.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya @borisrizov-zf as you're contributing the developments to developers which are not committers, I''ll still recommend to initiate an IP review. I explained the process here. Normally the Eclipse Foundation takes of IP reviews quite fast (if it's not in the midst of vacation season), I've seen some processed even within a day.

IP check issue created: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/16321

[nitin-vavdiya]

Separate issue created to fix Test and verify helm chart workflow: #353

[nitin-vavdiya]

@evegufy Yes, I'm aware of the size, but since @nitin-vavdiya is a committer, the 1000 lines limit doesn't apply. The review is ongoing, I anticipate no issues to be honest since this code has been tested and used by Cofinity-X.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya @borisrizov-zf as you're contributing the developments to developers which are not committers, I''ll still recommend to initiate an IP review. I explained the process here. Normally the Eclipse Foundation takes of IP reviews quite fast (if it's not in the midst of vacation season), I've seen some processed even within a day.

IP check issue created: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/16321

@evegufy
IP check is approved today, Is it okay to merge now?

[evegufy]

@evegufy Yes, I'm aware of the size, but since @nitin-vavdiya is a committer, the 1000 lines limit doesn't apply. The review is ongoing, I anticipate no issues to be honest since this code has been tested and used by Cofinity-X.

Hi @nitin-vavdiya @borisrizov-zf as you're contributing the developments to developers which are not committers, I''ll still recommend to initiate an IP review. I explained the process here. Normally the Eclipse Foundation takes of IP reviews quite fast (if it's not in the midst of vacation season), I've seen some processed even within a day.

IP check issue created: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/iplab/-/issues/16321

@evegufy IP check is approved today, Is it okay to merge now?

sure

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.0.0-develop.5 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀