Add version_id support

[tsachiherman]

What ?

This PR add the support for version_id as part of the resolver implementation.

More details

The DID document specifications is described https://github.com/decentralized-identity/ethr-did-resolver/blob/master/doc/did-method-spec.md.
The changes here convert the return type from DidDocument into a DidResolutionResult.
The difference is this:

pub struct DidResolutionResult {
    #[serde(
        default,
        rename = "didDocumentMetadata",
        skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none"
    )]
    pub metadata: Option<DidDocumentMetadata>,
    #[serde(
        rename = "didResolutionMetadata",
        skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none"
    )]
    pub resolution_metadata: Option<DidResolutionMetadata>,
    #[serde(rename = "didDocument")]
    pub document: DidDocument,
}

So that a DidResolutionResult provides additional information regarding the document. In particular, it provides versioning information.

To take advantage of that, the resolver also support requesting a particular version. That version can be provided as the second argument :

> curl -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"id":1, "jsonrpc":"2.0", "method": "did_resolveDid", "params": ["0x423B6F365C14F4b233928088FF937e01c143A328","4930857"]}' http://localhost:9944 | jq

result by

{
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "result": {
    "didDocumentMetadata": {
      "deactivated": false,
      "versionId": 4930857,
      "updated": "2023-12-21T15:43:00Z",
      "nextVersionId": 4930891,
      "nextUpdate": "2023-12-21T15:50:48Z"
    },
    "didResolutionMetadata": {
      "contentType": "application/did+ld+json"
    },
    "didDocument": {
      "@context": [
        "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1",
        "https://w3id.org/security/suites/ed25519-2020/v2"
      ],
      "id": "did:ethr:0x423b6f365c14f4b233928088ff937e01c143a328",
      "verificationMethod": [
        {
          "id": "did:ethr:0x423b6f365c14f4b233928088ff937e01c143a328#controller",
          "controller": "did:ethr:0x423b6f365c14f4b233928088ff937e01c143a328",
          "type": "EcdsaSecp256k1VerificationKey2019",
          "blockchainAccountId": "0x423b6f365c14f4b233928088ff937e01c143a328"
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "id": 1
}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 20 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (749f7c1) 91.79% compared to head (a94ecaf) 91.25%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/lib.rs	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/resolver.rs	94.94%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/types/ethr.rs	60.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

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

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #21      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.79%   91.25%   -0.54%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines        1194     1292      +98     
==========================================
+ Hits         1096     1179      +83     
- Misses         98      113      +15     

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

[insipx]

Looks good, but you got a bunch of clippy suggestions you should go through,

cargo clippy

[jac18281828]

Looks good to me. One note about process, you should be able to directly create branches in the xmtp/didethresolver repo and PR from there. Let me know if GitHub permissions forced you to fork the repo. Your GitHub user may not be in the right group. IT should be able to fix that.

[tsachiherman]

Looks good to me. One note about process, you should be able to directly create branches in the xmtp/didethresolver repo and PR from there. Let me know if GitHub permissions forced you to fork the repo. Your GitHub user may not be in the right group. IT should be able to fix that.

That was done very much on purpose, so that we won't "spam" the public repository with intermediate branches. Creating shared branches are good practice when we have multiple individuals contributing to the same branch, but aren't really designed for scalability. ( i.e. it would add the role of "cleanup officer" ).

That's the reason why most large organizations that promotes external contributions would allow PR to be created only from a fork.

[jac18281828]

I'm confused about this result. Is deactivated successful or failure?

[tsachiherman]

it's neither. The deactivation is separate from the error.

[jac18281828]

Generally looking good to me! I made one note but thanks for cleaning up the warnings!

[insipx]

much cleaner and nice job!