fix: change the way of converting blank node ids #129
Merged
Conversation
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 fix improves the way of converting blank node ids before signing and verification, just using regexp-based string replacement. It enables us to make `credentialSubject.id` to be blank node identifier, which would be useful in privacy-preserving applications of BBS+. fixes mattrglobal#128
|
@yamdan thanks this PR looks great! I'll just have to fix the code-coverage bot first, then I'll approve and merge this |
kdenhartog
approved these changes
May 21, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This fix improves the way of converting blank node ids before signing and verification, just using regexp-based string replacement. It enables us to make
credentialSubject.idto be blank node identifier, which would be useful in privacy-preserving applications of BBS+.Motivation and Context
fixes #128
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Which merge strategy will you use?