You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 10, 2021. It is now read-only.
I would like to send another verification at a later time and then update the property 'Rank', but when i send another verification it not overwrite the previous one I sent. On the uPort app there is then two entries in the Credentials tab. Is there a property that i can set to say that this must modify an existing verification? If not, what is the common way of dealing with this? I see that when I do:
Is there a property that i can set to say that this must modify an existing verification?
The current spec does not cover this scenario. The credentials are considered valid for the entire interval between iat and exp. Revocation mechanism could be used but they are not part of verification spec now.
If not, what is the common way of dealing with this?
A common way of dealing with this may be to issue credentials that expire faster. Those can later be ignored more easily. Another possible scenario is using an external revocation mechanism.
In your case, another external mechanism is your own business logic - where you only consider the latest credential of that type.
I'm closing this issue, please reopen if the answer is not clear enough.
Hi,
I'm learning to use UPort connect so might have missed something obvious, but I am using this code:
I would like to send another verification at a later time and then update the property 'Rank', but when i send another verification it not overwrite the previous one I sent. On the uPort app there is then two entries in the Credentials tab. Is there a property that i can set to say that this must modify an existing verification? If not, what is the common way of dealing with this? I see that when I do:
then i get both verifications 'AnotherExample' back, so I guess I could look at the iat field to see which is the most recent one?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: