-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 521
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
Feature: enabled handling VPs (request, creation, verification) with different VCs #1956
Feature: enabled handling VPs (request, creation, verification) with different VCs #1956
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
@swcurran Could we take this PR in the agenda of the upcoming Aca-Pug Call? Thanks and best |
Yes -- super interested. @teanas are you working with @hkny ? Definitely would like to get a more detailed background about what is in here. From reading the description -- does this mean Indy proofs via a DIF Presentation Exchange? We can have this on the Agenda for the first Tuesday in October -- the next ACA-Pug meeting. Thanks!!!! |
It would be great to get the branch updated and the SonarCloud issues looked at, please. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1956 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.49% 93.50%
=======================================
Files 539 539
Lines 34637 34666 +29
=======================================
+ Hits 32383 32413 +30
+ Misses 2254 2253 -1 |
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
@swcurran for some reason SonarQube did not start a new analysis after my latest commit. Can I somehow manually trigger the analysis? |
I had to manually trigger the other tests, but I'm still not seeing the SonarQube analysis -- not sure why. Any idea @WadeBarnes ? |
Looks like there is some code formatting to clean up, which will result in another commit, so you can try again. |
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
The 1 security hotspot refers to the usage of a path for a mock object, which has been previously used in other test cases as well. Is this hotspot safe if there are old tests containing the same structure? E. g., test_create_presentation. |
@swcurran Are there any checks missing? |
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
Sorry @teanas that the checks aren't running automagically due to a first commit -- I'll make sure I monitor them and run them with each of your commits. |
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia <[email protected]>
The failing scenario in acapy-integration-tests is about issuing a credential and I haven't added any changes to the issuance process (failed scenario: features/0453-issue-credential.feature:57). The exception is ledger related and appears during create_schema_and_cred_def/create_and_send_credential_definition neither of which I altered. @swcurran do you have an idea what might be the problem? 7hAcme.agent | 2022-10-10 19:25:10,919 aries_cloudagent.ledger.base WARNING Credential definition KSKnzboJ3zTeZVHobSkYQh:3:CL:339254:Acme.agent.Schema_DriversLicense already exists on ledger default
|
@ianco -- can you please take a look at this test? Thanks! |
It runs fine on my local, sometimes tests fail randomly :-( |
Hi @teanas, please add the multicredential.md in the root folder of the project and add the following description (copy/paste) Multi-CredentialsIt is a known fact that multiple AnonCreds can be combined to present a presentation proof with an "and" logical operator: For instance, a verifier can ask for the "name" claim from an eID and the "address" claim from a bank statement to have a single proof that is either valid or invalid. With the Present Proof Protocol v2, it is possible to have "and" and "or" logical operators for AnonCreds and/or W3C Verifiable Credentials. With the Present Proof Protocol v2, verifiers can ask for a combination of credentials as proof. For instance, a Verifier can ask a claim from an AnonCreds and a verifiable presentation from a W3C Verifiable Credential, which would open the possibilities of Aries Cloud Agent Python being used for rather complex presentation proof requests that wouldn't be possible without the support of AnonCreds or W3C Verifiable Credentials. Moreover, it is possible to make similar presentation proof requests using the or logical operator. For instance, a verifier can ask for either an eID in AnonCreds format or an eID in W3C Verifiable Credential format. This has the potential to solve the interoperability problem of different credential formats and ecosystems from a user point of view by shifting the requirement of holding/accepting different credential formats from identity holders to verifiers. Here again, using Aries Cloud Agent Python as the underlying verifier agent can tackle such complex presentation proof requests since the agent is capable of verifying both type of credential formats and proof types. In the future, it would be even possible to put mDoc as an attachment with an and or or logical operation, along with AnonCreds and/or W3C Verifiable Credentials. For this to happen, Aca-Py either needs the capabilities to validate mDocs internally or to connect third-party endpoints to validate and get a response. After that I think this is ready to merge. Thanks again. |
Sorry for the delay -- this is on @andrewwhitehead 's list for review. We'd like to get it completed. |
Hi, |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Enabled handing presentation requests with indy and dif
Enabled handling presentation requests with requests for claims from different JSON-LD VCs (verifier has to create separate submission requirement groups for each claim from different VC) In case, multiple claims should come from the same VC, the descriptors can be included in the same group
Updated demo/agent_controller to correctly construct presentations.
Signed-off-by: Anastasiia Sivirina [email protected]