API Signing for discovery provider #532
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is looking really good @vicky-g! I have a few asks to try to move towards unifying the response data in health_check and version and also extra metadata fields to add, but this is looking very close
|
One more thing here. for now we can probably hardcode some wallet and private key into the configs. otherwise the process will err for local runs if no values are set right? |
|
@dmanjunath yeah, the disc prov won't start without some wallet and private key. i'll add some dummy values to this pr! |
|
also @vicky-g tests are failing |
| # Override the default method | ||
| def default(self, o): # pylint: disable=E0202 | ||
| if isinstance(o, (datetime.date, datetime.datetime)): | ||
| # TODO - the Z is required in JS date format |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dmanjunath is this TODO still relevant?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was meant more as a comment, not a TODO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i can remove the TODO
|
|
||
| def error_response(error, error_code=500): | ||
| return jsonify({'success': False, 'error': error}), error_code | ||
|
|
||
| # Create a response dict with just data, signature, and timestamp | ||
| # This response will contain a duplicate of response_entity | ||
| def success_response_backwards_compat(response_entity=None, status=200): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vicky-g jw - does this mean the new success_response isn't backwards compatible right? its just differently formatted than success_response
No description provided.