VDR: Produce did:web documents #2631
Conversation
docs/_static/vdr/v1.yaml
Outdated
| @@ -301,6 +301,13 @@ components: | |||
| type: boolean | |||
| description: whether the generated DID Document can be altered with its own capabilityInvocation key. | |||
| default: true | |||
| method: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we decided on a v2 api?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we could short-circuit this to get progress on the end-to-end tests, but adding it to the spec. might be a bit much. Since the HTTP request object is hand-written anyways, we can still leave it in the v1 API (so we can get going on e2e tests), but it won't show up in the OAPI spec?
woutslakhorst
force-pushed
the
vdr/produce-didweb
branch
from
6ea5e15 to
e26138d
Compare
docs/_static/vdr/v2.yaml
Outdated
| post: | ||
| summary: Adds a service to the DID document. | ||
| description: | | ||
| It adds the given service to the DID Document. The ID will be generated and replaced. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we don't need to generate it? Since it isn't the thumbprint any more. So I'd say just accept it as-is, if it's not set we can generate a UUID. There might be use cases for people setting the ID.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would actually be nice to do for the DID itself as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, then parties can choose to actually use recognizable DIDs (instead of ones containing random computer stRINGS)
vdr/api/v1/types.go
Outdated
| * Copyright (C) 2021 Nuts community | ||
| * |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nasty malformed copyright statements
|
Comments solved in #2630 |
|
@reinkrul up2date with master, now only 1k lines to review |
| @@ -106,6 +118,7 @@ func createCmd() *cobra.Command { | |||
| result.Flags().BoolVar(createRequest.CapabilityInvocation, "capabilityInvocation", defs.KeyFlags.Is(management.CapabilityInvocationUsage), setUsage(defs.KeyFlags.Is(management.CapabilityInvocationUsage), "Pass '%t' to %s capabilityInvocation capabilities.")) | |||
| result.Flags().BoolVar(createRequest.KeyAgreement, "keyAgreement", defs.KeyFlags.Is(management.KeyAgreementUsage), setUsage(defs.KeyFlags.Is(management.KeyAgreementUsage), "Pass '%t' to %s keyAgreement capabilities.")) | |||
| result.Flags().BoolVar(createRequest.SelfControl, "selfControl", defs.SelfControl, setUsage(defs.SelfControl, "Pass '%t' to %s DID Document control.")) | |||
| result.Flags().BoolVar(&useV2, "v2", false, "Pass 'true' to use the V2 API and create a web:did.") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| result.Flags().BoolVar(&useV2, "v2", false, "Pass 'true' to use the V2 API and create a web:did.") | |
| result.Flags().BoolVar(&useV2, "v2", false, "Pass 'true' to use the V2 API and create a did:web DID.") |
|
Found small thing in new CLI flags. Rest looks OK. I can't approve/request changes on my own PR, so I'd say just approve & merge |
This PR adds support to create
did:webdocuments and have them returned by IAM's/iam/{did}endpoint. This enables e2e tests for the new OAuth2 implementations to test with actualdid:webdocuments.TODO:
DeriveWebDidDocumentfunctionality (replaced with actual web-DIDs)