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

Backport #3081 to LTS releases #3139

Closed
esune opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed

Backport #3081 to LTS releases #3139

esune opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@esune
Copy link
Member

esune commented Jul 31, 2024

#3081 tweaks terse webhooks to expose enough data to allow controllers to receive the information they need without relying on storing and fetching the exchange records.

This change should be cherry-picked and backported to current LTS releases to avoid issues for users using 2.0 protocols.

@swcurran
Copy link
Contributor

@jamshale — can you make the necessary PRs for this? Thanks. Let’s get this into 0.12.2, since we haven’t released it yet.

@dbluhm, others — any updates on the testing of 0.12.2rc1?

@swcurran
Copy link
Contributor

Does this really need to go to 0.11.x? I'm not sure it is relevant -- I think the related features were in 0.12.x only.

@jamshale jamshale self-assigned this Jul 31, 2024
@esune
Copy link
Member Author

esune commented Jul 31, 2024

Does this really need to go to 0.11.x? I'm not sure it is relevant -- I think the related features were in 0.12.x only.

I would be okay backporting it only to 0.12.x, however since present-proof 2.0 was introduced in https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python/releases/tag/0.7.4 and the terse webhooks this addresses were added in 0.8.0 I think this issue would be in any release after 0.8.0 so it would be good to address this in all (currently) designated LTS releases.

@swcurran
Copy link
Contributor

It was the handling of the deleting of Presentation records after the protocol completes that I was thinking about. It turns out, that went in to ACA-Py in 0.10.0, so before the 0.11.0 LTS. It’s kind of a stretch to be needed for an LTS, as it isn’t a security issue, and anyone seeing it would have long addressed it somehow.

@esune
Copy link
Member Author

esune commented Jul 31, 2024

Ah, right - it's in combination with that as well. If we can get 0.12.x it might be good enough - I agree it is not a security issue, but seems like an important enough bug to get it fixed in at lest the latest official release (to me).

@jamshale jamshale closed this as completed Aug 2, 2024
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants