Skip to content

Conversation

@TimoGlastra
Copy link
Contributor

I meant to create a small fix that we identified when requesting two credentials and only one being present (it would match none).

While fixing this I discovered the selectFrom would something return INFO, even though the required credentials were not present. So I rewrote quite a big chunk of matching logic. It doesn't touch the actual matching based on input descriptors, but it heavily modifies the submission requirement matching and the sub-result combining.

The matches structure is much richer now, allow for much more advanced credential selection in wallets. I know with DCQL we probably don't want to make too big changes to this library anymore, but the current results were sometimes not fully expressive with submission requirements (and especially nested submission requirements).

Signed-off-by: Timo Glastra <timo@animo.id>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 23, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.63636% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.47%. Comparing base (cae72f8) to head (12d8eb4).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lib/evaluation/evaluationClientWrapper.ts 93.63% 7 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #187      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    92.62%   92.47%   -0.15%     
===========================================
  Files           66       66              
  Lines         2780     2686      -94     
  Branches       733      635      -98     
===========================================
- Hits          2575     2484      -91     
- Misses         200      201       +1     
+ Partials         5        1       -4     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittest 92.47% <93.63%> (-0.15%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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


🚨 Try these New Features:

@TimoGlastra
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @nklomp just want to check if the direction of this PR looks ok to you?

@TimoGlastra
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @nklomp small bump on this one, I think it includes some great improvements, and we've been using it in our fork for a while. Would be great if we can move Credo and our infrastructure back to the main release

Signed-off-by: Timo Glastra <timo@animo.id>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant