Add DID static validation without tests #291
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin <[email protected]>
| match := SplitDIDRegexp.FindStringSubmatch(did) | ||
| if len(match) > 0 { | ||
| return match[1], match[3], match[4] | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's throw an error otherwise
| return ErrStaticDIDBadMethod.Wrap(method) | ||
| } | ||
| // check namespaces | ||
| if !DidNamespaceRegexp.MatchString(namespace) || !utils.Contains(allowedNamespaces, namespace) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's move regexp matches to the split method
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So validate will only compare namespace / method with passed parameters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will it be cool to throw the exception while splitting the DID? From my point of view it's a phase of validation.
| return ErrStaticDIDNamespaceNotAllowed.Wrap(namespace) | ||
| } | ||
| // check unique-id | ||
| err := ValidateUniqueId(unique_id) |
| return err == nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // SplitDID panics if did is not valid |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't panic :) Return an error
| "regexp" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| var SplitDIDRegexp, _ = regexp.Compile(`did:([^:]+?)(:([^:]+?))?:([^:]+)$`) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| var SplitDIDRegexp, _ = regexp.Compile(`did:([^:]+?)(:([^:]+?))?:([^:]+)$`) | |
| var SplitDIDRegexp, _ = regexp.Compile(`^did:([^:]+?)(:([^:]+?))?:([^:]+)$`) |
|
|
||
| // SplitDIDUrl panics if did cannot be splitted properly | ||
| func SplitDIDUrl(didUrl string) (did string, path string , query string, fragment string) { | ||
| match := SplitDIDURL.FindStringSubmatch(didUrl) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's check for matches count
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we check for matches count?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It matches only once for Golang regexps... I checked it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, The last changes in regexp doesn't match in case of fragment being #key123???#####
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| // Validate path | ||
| err = ValidatePath(path) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And let's move those checks to the split method as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why we need to mix validation and splitting?
Signed-off-by: Andrew Nikitin [email protected]