Closed clementh59 closed 1 year ago
@clementh59
Thanks a lot for trying our open-source tool and bringing the issue to our notice.
We just analysed the code and compared it with standard documentation and this is a bug in our code. This issue occurs because we were referencing the incorrect/outdated documentation during the development.
We are currently working on the fix and will update you as soon as it has been merged with the main
branch.
Great, thanks a lot! I'll compare the implementations again once it is merged :)
@clementh59
The issue has been fixed now and the changes are available in main
branch. Along with bizTransaction
we have also changed the ordering for source
and destination
as per the standard..
Please validate the changes and let us know if you are still seeing any issues.
@Aravinda93 Thanks a lot,
The web tools (https://tools.openepcis.io/q/swagger-ui/#/Event%20Hash%20Generator/1 and https://tools.openepcis.io/openepcis-ui/EventHash/) don't seem to be updated. Which tool should I use to have the latest version?
The web tools (https://tools.openepcis.io/q/swagger-ui/#/Event%20Hash%20Generator/1 and https://tools.openepcis.io/openepcis-ui/EventHash/) don't seem to be updated. Which tool should I use to have the latest version?
the fix has only been integrated into this project's release build and can be tested with the command line client: https://github.com/openepcis/openepcis-event-hash-generator/tree/main/cli
@clementh59 @Aravinda93 I am currently rebuilding the service and ui wrapper that we are running on tools.openepcis.io and let you know once it has been deployed.
@clementh59 https://tools.openepcis.io was updated with the latest fixes.
You might also be interested in https://tools.openepcis.io/q/swagger-ui
Thanks!
Hi,
First of all, thanks a lot for you open source implementation. It is super useful. I tested your algorithm, and compared it to ours (https://github.com/evrythng/epcis2.js#generating-a-hashed-id-for-an-event)
I compared with this EPCIS document:
The pre-hash string I got from your algorithm is:
Whereas I got this from ours:
There are two differences:
I hope this helps! :)
Regards,
Clément