Map authenticator transports on server side

[joegoldman2]

Map the authenticator transports on server side. The demo app already stores the value:

fido2-net-lib/Demo/Controller.cs

Line 130 in ebfd75d

Transports = success.Result.Transports,

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (66ae98f) 73.83% compared to head (9cd3999) 73.88%.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #453      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.83%   73.88%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          99       99              
  Lines        2710     2711       +1     
  Branches      445      445              
==========================================
+ Hits         2001     2003       +2     
+ Misses        604      603       -1     
  Partials      105      105              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[abergs]

@iamcarbon @aseigler While this could be merged, we're currently not showcasing transports anywhere.

In fact, we have this line: https://github.com/passwordless-lib/fido2-net-lib/blob/master/Src/Fido2/AuthenticatorAttestationResponse.cs#L193 which specifically mentions that you would need to get this yourself somehow.

Should we remove Transports from RegisteredPublicKeyCredential? Or should we somehow make it part of the story?

[abergs]

Actually - when reading the spec, My opinion is that we should add transports to our server side raw class and keep sending it from JS, just like we do. We should additionally make sure it ends up in the RegisteredPublicKeyCredential class

[abergs]

@joegoldman2 Thank you, I think this looks solid.

Would welcome any second opinions from @iamcarbon or @aseigler, but I'm approving this.

[aseigler]

Code looks reasonable to me, not sure what is going on with those failed tests. Is that new or an environment issue?

[abergs]

I'm trying to re-run those checks to see if can get this in!