Closed mistermoe closed 1 year ago
@dtmcg @brentzundel @kimdhamilton I really think this is a necessary addition, and is backwards compatible.
yes, this makes sense. I wonder if we can reuse the required/preferred pattern here, and have required be default. Although I need to refresh my memory on whether that's applicable here
The default is already 'required' without any property, so if we did
optional: true
it would be a gracefully upgrading addition.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2022, 9:35 PM Kim Hamilton Duffy @.***> wrote:
yes, this makes sense. I wonder if we can reuse the required/preferred pattern here, and have required be default. Although I need to refresh my memory on whether that's applicable here
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/decentralized-identity/presentation-exchange/issues/377#issuecomment-1264533401, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABAFSURY344QZTDTBUTHLLWBDYHLANCNFSM6AAAAAAQZ43HVE . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.*** .com>
is this a duplicate of #375 ?
Yes, it's a dupe, and the PR closed both
addressed by #378
Is there any way other than using
submission_requirements
to support an optional field? e.g. middleName. Include it if you have it. It’d be somewhat unfortunate if optional fields aren’t supported in a way aside from usingsubmission_requirements
wherein twoinput_descriptor
objects are provided for the same group and only 1 must be satisfied. 1 input_descriptor would include the optional field in its fields array and 1 would exclude it… thus creating support for optional fields (albeit janky and verbose)