-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #370 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 20.23% 20.46% +0.22%
==========================================
Files 42 48 +6
Lines 4675 5454 +779
==========================================
+ Hits 946 1116 +170
- Misses 3597 4172 +575
- Partials 132 166 +34
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
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.
Great job! Just a few little things and some clarifying questions
Methods: []string{"key", "web"}, | ||
ResolutionMethods: []string{"key", "peer", "web", "pkh"}, | ||
BaseServiceConfig: &BaseServiceConfig{Name: "did"}, | ||
Methods: []string{"key", "web"}, |
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.
do we want to add ion into the default method?
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.
I don't think so because it requires having a valid write node configured
universal_resolver_url = "http://uni-resolver-web:8080" | ||
universal_resolver_methods = ["ion"] | ||
ion_resolver_url = "https://tbdwebsiteonline.com" |
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.
url doesn't resolve to anything right now, was this a placeholder or will this be the real url?
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.
this is in fact our ion node - you'll notice it works if you make a query like https://tbdwebsiteonline.com/identifiers/did:ion:EiBnKzBTMxW6wM5kIlVBHidpbvKHC9QrNqfYL-Rhpbt63Q
@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"keyType":"Ed25519", | |||
"didWebId":"did:web:tbd.website" | |||
"options": { |
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!
@@ -128,6 +133,56 @@ func (dr DIDRouter) CreateDIDByMethod(ctx context.Context, w http.ResponseWriter | |||
return framework.Respond(ctx, w, resp, http.StatusCreated) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
// toCreateDIDRequest converts CreateDIDByMethodRequest to did.CreateDIDRequest, parsing options according to method | |||
func toCreateDIDRequest(m didsdk.Method, request CreateDIDByMethodRequest) (*did.CreateDIDRequest, error) { |
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.
pretty clever! Was this overkill though?
What was the reason to not have just string fields in the option{} req object?
*didKey -> option better not exist or return err
*didWeb -> option better be url or return err
*didIon -> option better not exist or return err
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.
help me understand...the option object can accept anything - for ion need to accept an array of public keys or service endpoints
the object is a generic any
but to extract the value you need to know the concrete type
if it can be simplified let's do it I couldn't figure out a simpler way
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.
type CreateDIDByMethodRequest struct {
KeyType crypto.KeyType `json:"keyType" validate:"required"`
// Required when creating a DID with the `web`
DIDWebID string `json:"didWebId"`
// Required when creating a DID with the `ion`
DIDIonPublicKeys []string `json:"didIonPublicKeys"`
DIDIonServiceEndpoints []string `json:"didIonServiceEndpoints"`
}
^ could be like this instead right?
I think I like your way more, but just wonder if it was overkill and could introduce some bugs or efficiency issue
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.
oh yeah, this can work. the tradeoff is then having an "any" request vs a more generic method like I have and specific impls per type...with then the tradeoff of having some ugly mapping code.
I think the real solution is to get away from the generic -> specific funnel code we have now and instead register first-party handlers...I'm not entirely sure how this would work it would be a significant refactor but could be a more natural approach than forcing all DID methods to follow a similar structure.
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.
I think it's related to Andres's points here #362 so I'll add a note with your comment and we can address in there
pkg/server/router/keystore.go
Outdated
Type crypto.KeyType `json:"type,omitempty" validate:"required"` | ||
|
||
// See https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#did-controller | ||
Controller string `json:"controller,omitempty" validate:"required"` | ||
|
||
// Base58 encoding of the bytes that result from marshalling the private key using golang's implementation. | ||
PrivateKeyBase58 string `json:"base58PrivateKey,omitempty" validate:"required"` | ||
PrivateKeyBase58 string `json:"base58PrivateKey,omitempty"` |
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.
remove validate:"required" was this intendend ?
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.
I can add this back until #371
ID: ionDID.ID(), | ||
DID: didDoc, | ||
SoftDeleted: false, | ||
LongFormDID: ionDID.LongForm(), |
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.
can these get really really really big? Maybe we need to revist the max size redis can store
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.
yeah I think this could end up being a few MB with updates. for now it should be fine
logrus.WithError(err).Warnf("error getting DID from storage: %s", id) | ||
|
||
// if not, resolve it from the network | ||
resolved, err := h.resolver.Resolve(ctx, id, nil) |
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.
oh cool !
func (h *ionHandler) GetDID(ctx context.Context, request GetDIDRequest) (*GetDIDResponse, error) { | ||
id := request.ID | ||
|
||
// TODO(gabe) as we are fully custodying ION DIDs this is fine; as we move to a more decentralized model we will |
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.
maybe like we could at least have a log line / throw an error if the did in storage and the did that gets resolved are different?
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.
for now this is impossible since we only allow create and do not return the update key to the user. when we add updates and/or self-custody operations we will need to do this
return &GetDIDResponse{DID: resolved.Document}, nil | ||
} | ||
|
||
// GetDIDs returns all DIDs we have in storage for ION, it is not feasible to get all DIDs from the network |
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.
there is no Ion batch call functionality ?
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.
looking at the api - no - this is an improvement we can make
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.
for _, didBytes := range gotDIDs { | ||
var nextDID StoredDID | ||
nextDID := reflect.New(reflect.TypeOf(outType).Elem()).Interface() |
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.
this could be computationally really slow? (maybe not)
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.
yeah, depending on how large the set of DIDs is this could be bad. this will mostly be fine with #349
🏆 |
Overview