fix: minor type hint corrections for VcLdpManager

[dbluhm]

These are some really minor fixes just to make type checking happy and to clarify the use of some values in the VcLdpManager.

[PatStLouis]

This section could use a short comment to understand what is happening, there's a lot going on in the return statement.

I could suggest:
# We iterate through the PROOF_KEY_TYPE_MAPPING dictionary to return an array of it's items as LinkedDataProof objects

[PatStLouis]

Looks good, I see a lot of attributes are marked as Optional, if they were required beforehand, what is the purpose of making them optional?

Otherwise I just want to point out that technically the term LinkedDataProof was renamed to DataIntegrityProof. Given the structure of the project this would be a pretty big change to implement however it's important to note that when we are referring to linked data proofs here we are in fact talking about data integrity proofs...maybe a note somewhere in the readme could be worthwhile...
https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/
https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#data-integrity-proofs

[dbluhm]

Looks good, I see a lot of attributes are marked as Optional, if they were required beforehand, what is the purpose of making them optional?

Good question; the type hints for the changed parameters all had a default value of None. This was intended to indicate that the value was a str | None or whatever other type. This was an old convention that ACA-Py followed but is no longer accepted by tools like pyright/pylance. The added Optional annotation aligns the type hint with the use of the field, updating it to match what modern type checking tools expect.

[dbluhm]

Otherwise I just want to point out that technically the term LinkedDataProof was renamed to DataIntegrityProof. Given the structure of the project this would be a pretty big change to implement however it's important to note that when we are referring to linked data proofs here we are in fact talking about data integrity proofs.

I think this is a good one for us to file an issue on but probably not something to be addressed by this PR directly, IMO.

[PatStLouis]

I definitely don't think this PR should address this as this would entail a massive restructuring and might become a significant endeavor. Deciding if it's a worthwhile thing to address could be discussed in a separate issue. There's a distinction here between functional coding and proper term definition. AFAIK linked data proofs and data integrity proofs refer to the same thing/concept.

[andrewwhitehead]

Suggested change

	date: Union[datetime, None] = None,
	date: Optional[datetime] = None,

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud