-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 515
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: multiuse invites with did peer 4 #3112
fix: multiuse invites with did peer 4 #3112
Conversation
This corrects an issue where did:peer:4 connection records were failing to be resolved on inbound message, resulting in the multiuse invitation that created the connection being resolved instead. Fixes openwallet-foundation#3111. Signed-off-by: Daniel Bluhm <dbluhm@pm.me>
3404e69
to
bdc7ccf
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Manually tested with the scenario that was failing for me and this fixed it 👍
OK to merge with the SonarCloud state? @dbluhm what do you think? |
I'm okay with it being merged as is but I am also happy to get a quick unit test written. Would not take a lot to cover the changes since it wasn't a lot of changes. |
Sometimes reformatted code will make sonarcloud report areas that didn't have any logic changes. I think that happened a bit here. Could think about a couple tests for the new code. |
Signed-off-by: Daniel Bluhm <dbluhm@pm.me>
Sonar cloud is still unhappy but I'd say the new unit tests + integration tests will be adequate to cover these changes. |
@jamshale https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python/actions/runs/10045120793/job/27761704780?pr=3112#step:4:18060 |
This test does have false negatives quite often, and it doesn't look very related. I think it's probably the case, as other tests would have failed as well. Let's see if it passes a new run. |
@dbluhm This test is actually failing locally. I think it must be related to the changes. I'm not sure why the |
Interesting -- I'll dig in! Thanks for checking locally |
Signed-off-by: Daniel Bluhm <dbluhm@pm.me>
@dbluhm — sorry to bug you, but another failed test in the PR Tests. Looks to be in the same area as the most recent commit. |
Signed-off-by: Daniel Bluhm <dbluhm@pm.me>
Yeah, pushed while my tests were running locally still 🙂 PR tests should be good now. I think int tests are too but they take a while to run locally even when narrowed to just the endorser scenarios. |
Quality Gate failedFailed conditions |
@@ -772,20 +767,17 @@ async def set_transaction_my_job(self, record: ConnRecord, transaction_my_job: s | |||
return tx_job_to_send | |||
|
|||
async def set_transaction_their_job( | |||
self, tx_job_received: TransactionJobToSend, receipt: MessageReceipt | |||
self, tx_job_received: TransactionJobToSend, connection: ConnRecord |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was looking at this for a bit and didn't understand why it used MessageReceipt here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed; my impression is that it was just a question of the implementer being unfamiliar with the request context or something along those lines.
This corrects an issue where did:peer:4 connection records were failing to be resolved on inbound message, resulting in the multiuse invitation that created the connection being resolved instead.
Fixes #3111.