fix(proofs): await shouldAutoRespond to correctly handle the check

[berendsliedrecht]

We did not await the shouldAutoRespondTo... and if we then check if the value is truthy, it is because it is a Promise and not the contained value of boolean.

Abstracting the async function call to a variable above makes an IDE error on the if statement is it will always be truthy if not-awaited.

@TimoGlastra Would it make sense to add a rule that you must mark void/await for async calls? that would've probably avoided this, quite big, bug.

closes #1095

[genaris]

🔥
Just a little edit on the scope for changelog ("proofs" instead of "proof")

[berendsliedrecht]

@TimoGlastra Would it be possible to get this in 0.3.0? I assume if it goes to main now it will be in 0.3.0, right?

[genaris]

@TimoGlastra Would it be possible to get this in 0.3.0? I assume if it goes to main now it will be in 0.3.0, right?

We are working on 0.3.0.alpha.xxx, so every commit will be included to the 0.3.0 release. A new PR will be created later on (I think Timo created the current release PR just to help me on the migration guide, as it generates the changelog).

[TimoGlastra]

@TimoGlastra Would it make sense to add a rule that you must mark void/await for async calls? that would've probably avoided this, quite big, bug.

Yes I think we should add no-floating-promises and no-misused-promises

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1116 (3841a15) into main (03cdf39) will decrease coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1116      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.28%   88.16%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         705      705              
  Lines       16399    16405       +6     
  Branches     2657     2657              
==========================================
- Hits        14478    14463      -15     
- Misses       1914     1935      +21     
  Partials        7        7              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...les/credentials/protocol/v1/V1CredentialService.ts	93.43% <ø> (ø)
...ore/src/modules/proofs/ProofResponseCoordinator.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...oofs/protocol/v1/handlers/V1PresentationHandler.ts	96.15% <100.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
...otocol/v1/handlers/V1ProposePresentationHandler.ts	85.00% <100.00%> (+0.38%)	⬆️
...otocol/v1/handlers/V1RequestPresentationHandler.ts	88.37% <100.00%> (+0.27%)	⬆️
...oofs/protocol/v2/handlers/V2PresentationHandler.ts	96.15% <100.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
...otocol/v2/handlers/V2ProposePresentationHandler.ts	81.81% <100.00%> (+0.56%)	⬆️
...otocol/v2/handlers/V2RequestPresentationHandler.ts	97.05% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
...e/src/modules/proofs/protocol/v1/V1ProofService.ts	74.87% <0.00%> (-5.39%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[berendsliedrecht]

Apparently the tests were written for the incorrect way of doing autoAccept. Will fix this ASAP tomorrow.

[berendsliedrecht]

Sorry that it took so long, the bug was a bit bigger than just a missing "await". Our deep equality check did not work, and I had to change it. (also added some more tests to be sure).

[berendsliedrecht]

I forgot auto merge was enabled. @TimoGlastra @genaris if you see something wrong, I will revert the pr.