Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: add jws serialization feature #253

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Nov 18, 2024

Conversation

lukasjhan
Copy link
Member

This PR implements new JWS JSON serialization in standard.

Currently, I implemented the converting features. If you want, I can implement issue, present, and verify feature additionally on it. It may have dup code but I think it's quite simple approach for the first version since It doesn't ruin the original code.

Perhaps I did a naive implementation or I might be wrong because I did not know the intended use cases of the standard.
If there is anything you would like to point out, please feel free to do so. Thank you :)

Signed-off-by: Lukas.J.Han <[email protected]>
@cre8
Copy link
Contributor

cre8 commented Nov 12, 2024

I like that the flattened approach is realized with some extra functions. However for the json format where there are multiple signatures, this approach will not work anymore.
So is it good now to add it and later update it or better now?
For JADES signatures we will need the generalized approach as object

@lukasjhan
Copy link
Member Author

lukasjhan commented Nov 12, 2024

I like that the flattened approach is realized with some extra functions. However for the json format where there are multiple signatures, this approach will not work anymore. So is it good now to add it and later update it or better now? For JADES signatures we will need the generalized approach as object

Let's add it right away. I'll implement issue, present, verify feature for GeneralJSON to finish my pr :)

@lukasjhan
Copy link
Member Author

lukasjhan commented Nov 13, 2024

@cre8 I added separated instance class for issue, present and verify for generalJSON. If this approach looks good to you, I'll be working on tests and examples :)

Signed-off-by: Lukas.J.Han <[email protected]>
@cre8
Copy link
Contributor

cre8 commented Nov 17, 2024

@lukasjhan changes are looking good for me. I would prefer a more object oriented approach (and I think we have some redundancy), but it should be fine for now without a risk of breaking changes

@lukasjhan
Copy link
Member Author

@lukasjhan changes are looking good for me. I would prefer a more object oriented approach (and I think we have some redundancy), but it should be fine for now without a risk of breaking changes

Thank you :) I'm merging this to start working on the examples and tests.
Let's reduce redundant code after standard finalized.

@lukasjhan lukasjhan merged commit e83b494 into openwallet-foundation:main Nov 18, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants