Policy backend API spec #2607
Policy backend API spec #2607
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ | |||
| openapi: 3.1.0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - request_method | ||
| - presentation_submission | ||
| - vps | ||
| properties: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
missing the input_desciptor_constraint_id_map from the introspection endpoint? Could probably use a simpler name here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then the entire id to value mapping would have to be standardised. I think it's too early for a decision on that. With the VPs included, a backend can make a decision.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was under the impression that we would introduce this mapping so other parties do not have to deal with PEX/VC/VP and just check the string value they need extracted from the VC/VP. (makes it easier to start)
Do you still want to add this? If not (or undecided) we should probably remove the map from the introspection endpoint too for now
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That'll be an incremental change. We can then also process feedback in the same change.
| - request_method | ||
| - presentation_submission | ||
| - vps |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are optional? Most backends probably can't handle PEX/VC/VP
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first versions might just have to, we'll have to experiment a bit to see what's useful.
| "200": | ||
| description: | | ||
| DID has been found and the scope is supported. | ||
| If the scope is supported but no presentation definition is required, the response will be 200 with a presentation definition without any input descriptors. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what would the use case for this be?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
public service, like a directory service
| @@ -175,10 +175,10 @@ func TestHTTPClient_Authorized(t *testing.T) { | |||
| handler := http2.Handler{StatusCode: http.StatusOK} | |||
| _, client := testServerAndClient(t, &handler) | |||
|
|
|||
| response, err := client.Authorized(ctx, "http://::1:1", request) | |||
| response, err := client.Authorized(ctx, "http://test.test", request) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bad test, uses external resources and assumes test.test won't be available?
Better use the test server and an invalid (local) port?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from wiki
.test is a reserved top-level domain intended for usage in software testing. It is guaranteed to never be registered into the Internet.
an ipv6 address won't work on our CI. A .local takes a second to (not) resolve.
| - request_method | ||
| - presentation_submission | ||
| - vps | ||
| properties: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was under the impression that we would introduce this mapping so other parties do not have to deal with PEX/VC/VP and just check the string value they need extracted from the VC/VP. (makes it easier to start)
Do you still want to add this? If not (or undecided) we should probably remove the map from the introspection endpoint too for now
woutslakhorst
force-pushed
the
feature/2606/pex_backend_interface
branch
from
422e868 to
124df4f
Compare
closes #2606
The specification is required to generate a client for the Nuts node and for policy backends to generate the server API.