-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 516
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
Feat: Added support for Ed25519Signature2020 signature type and Ed25519VerificationKey2020 #2241
Merged
swcurran
merged 11 commits into
openwallet-foundation:main
from
sicpa-dlab:feat/Ed25519Signature2020
Jul 17, 2023
Merged
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ccc18e2
Added support for Ed25519Signature2020 signature type
dkulic 32af51c
Update aries_cloudagent/vc/ld_proofs/suites/ed25519_signature_2020.py
dkulic 5801b44
Make linter happy
dkulic 45f4bc2
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python…
dkulic 0ef31af
Improve tests
dkulic 36cb950
Added support for Ed25519VerificationKey2020
dkulic 4d6fda0
Linter fixes
dkulic 650aeef
Merge branch 'main' into feat/Ed25519Signature2020
dbluhm a258db0
Merge branch 'main' into feat/Ed25519Signature2020
dkulic d511cea
Add support for multicodec prefix for Ed25519VerificationKey2020
dkulic c99edb7
Linter fixes
dkulic File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this also needs an "unwrap" on the material to remove the
0xed
multicodec prefix added when using thepublicKeyMultibase
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's actually a little ambiguous in the DID Spec whether
publicKeyMultibase
also includes the multicodec prefix but in practice (in libraries like didcomm-python), it seems to be expected.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added support for both (with and without multicodec). Do you think it should be like that or should we support multibase keys only with multicodec?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given the ambiguity, I think accepting either is probably a good choice for now at least.