search

w3c-ccg / security-vocab

The Linked Data Security Vocabulary
https://w3id.org/security
Other
21 stars 21 forks source link

Add ci tests for jsonld-sigantures and vc-js #80

Closed OR13 closed 3 years ago

OR13 commented 3 years ago

I fixed the protected term conflicts that were related to proofPurpose.

See https://github.com/mattrglobal/jsonld-signatures-bbs/issues/93

OR13 commented 3 years ago

github actions are down, will need to restart later.

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog I added these test to try and help with the problems you noted with protected terms and contexts... you can see some of your issues are not reproduced in CI on every merge :)

kdenhartog commented 3 years ago

This looks amazing! I don't quite have enough time today to go through it in depth, but I'll be sure to get around to it by the end of this week when I get a bit of down time. Thanks for taking on this chunk of work @OR13

OR13 commented 3 years ago

Tests for Ed25519Signature2018, JsonWebSignature2020 and BbsBlsSignature2020 are now passing for https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v2 (not resolvable)

OR13 commented 3 years ago

Tests for Ed25519Signature2018, JsonWebSignature2020 and BbsBlsSignature2020 are now passing for https://w3id.org/security/v3-unstable

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog thanks for the review, let me take another pass on this.

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog I took another pass, removing a bunch of unnecessary things, and tightening up the definitions, ci tests are still passing.

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog can you review, make clear what additional changes are requested if any?

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog

On one hand the JSON only folks don't want to have to learn the dirty details of contexts and on the other hand we need to be properly separating the focus of the contexts in order to handle the variety of changes to these contexts.

Usually, I would agree, but the VC Data Model is about a semantic model for credentials and @context is required..... so really, we should be helping everyone experience as little JSON-LD as possible, but not hinting that they are not responsible for understanding the functionality that accompanies required terms.

In other words, its a very bad idea to say something is required, but you don't need to understand it.

OR13 commented 3 years ago

I removed the comments, thanks @kdenhartog for these awesome CRs!

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@kdenhartog yes, we should not attempt to tackle context splitting without ci tests in place :)

OR13 commented 3 years ago

@tplooker can you review and merge?