Deprecate proof parameter #453
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
c2bo
requested review from
Sakurann,
babisRoutis,
bc-pi,
jogu,
paulbastian and
tplooker
Contributor
Dear @c2bo IMHO, that's a reasonable choice. |
paulbastian
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2025
babisRoutis
approved these changes
Feb 5, 2025
Sakurann
reviewed
Feb 5, 2025
leecam
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2025
jogu
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2025
Co-authored-by: Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #345
Removes the
proofparameter in favour of always usingproofs.One point I wasn't sure about: To make the
proofsobject easier to parse , it always contains a parameter (named after the proof type) that contains a non-empty array. This means that for proofs of the typeattestation, it contains an array containing exactly one JWT proof.Are people fine with that choice?