Open Gavinok opened 4 weeks ago
See changes needed for ACA-Py 1.0.0 here. Updated VCauth Python version to match, though in this case they could mismatch if something is wrong with updating (not a plugin situation like Traction) #584
Haven't tested fully everything yet but could experiment with that to see if proofs 2.0 are fully working with that.
I'm not sure we'd want to merge on an RC aca-py though? If a VCauth production bugfix were needed then we'd be sending the RC to production? Maybe it's ok given the limited use cases in VCAuth. Could check with @esune
I think we can use the RC temporarily, if needed - chances are we'll be switching to the final release pretty soon though.
I have updated to now use the new RC and from my limited testing things seem to be working
Changes look good to me. Unless @loneil has objections to not merge this based on current wallet issue troubleshooting I think we could move forward.
I would hold off while finalizing testing on a few BC Wallet fixes that are best reproduced with current mainline VCauth-N, rather than introduce another variable so far with the new protocol and the aca-py release. I can do preliminary testing on this branch now though.
https://github.com/bcgov/bc-wallet-mobile/issues/2053 https://github.com/bcgov/bc-wallet-mobile/issues/2052 https://github.com/bcgov/bc-wallet-mobile/issues/2072
See changes needed for ACA-Py 1.0.0 here. Updated VCauth Python version to match, though in this case they could mismatch if something is wrong with updating (not a plugin situation like Traction) https://github.com/bcgov/vc-authn-oidc/pull/584
Haven't tested fully everything yet but could experiment with that to see if proofs 2.0 are fully working with that.
I'm not sure we'd want to merge on an RC aca-py though? If a VCauth production bugfix were needed then we'd be sending the RC to production? Maybe it's ok given the limited use cases in VCAuth. Could check with @esune