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

Multiple explicit Out-Of-Band invitations with public DID #1524

Closed
ffendt opened this issue Nov 29, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1525
Closed

Multiple explicit Out-Of-Band invitations with public DID #1524

ffendt opened this issue Nov 29, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1525
Assignees

Comments

@ffendt
Copy link

ffendt commented Nov 29, 2021

Current state:
Inviter throws exceptions when receiving connection requests to explicit public Out-Of-Band invitations, when there is more than one explicit public Out-Of-Band invitation in state invitation. The connection isn't established and stays in state invitation.

Desired state:
Inviter can create multiple explicit public Out-Of-Band invitations and invitees can receive them when they want to, without exceptions in the inviter.

Details:
When creating an invitation with public_did=true, the inviter will create a database entry for a connection with field invitation_key = public_did.verkey (see outofbound manager #L247). When providing multiple invitations, the inviter will have multiple invitations with the same invitation_key (and initially the same state invitation). If now an invitee receives one of the invitations, the inviter will run into an StorageDuplicateError in didexchange manager #L396.

If I understand the code correctly, fixing this would need some adjustments on how the didexchange manager correlates a received request to a previously created invitation.

@shaangill025
Copy link
Contributor

@ffendt The fix is ready if you want to give it a quick test.

@ffendt
Copy link
Author

ffendt commented Dec 1, 2021

@shaangill025 Looks good, I can't reproduce the problem with the fixes from your PR. Thank you very much.

I'll close this issue and subscribe to the PR to retest if there are any major code changes.

@ffendt ffendt closed this as completed Dec 1, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants