Further explain non-tested implementation claims. #67
Conversation
BigBlueHat
requested review from
iherman,
msporny,
PatStLouis,
TallTed and
brentzundel
BigBlueHat
force-pushed
the
improve-tradeverifyd-note
branch
from
01050cc to
7926ab5
Compare
abstract.hbs
Outdated
| <a href="https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model-2.0-test-suite?tab=readme-ov-file#test-suite-http-api">test suite API</a> | ||
| requires raw JSON responses such that implementations | ||
| using VC JOSE/COSE or other enveloped response bodies are required to unwrap | ||
| the envelopes prior to responsing. Consequently, in addition to the test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an outsider, I do not understand the "consequently" here. Is it so that the implementation of tradeverifyd does not have the possibility to unwrap (or it requires too much extra work) hence and it cannot connect to the API? If that is the case, then explain this, please, otherwise this additional text does not make sense to me...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@iherman I believe it falls into the "requires too much extra work" category, at least if you're working with enveloped formats instead of JSON. I described the approach taken a bit more in #45 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then youcan modify the text accordingly. "Too much extra work" is a perfect argument.
abstract.hbs
Outdated
| requires raw JSON responses such that implementations | ||
| using VC JOSE/COSE or other enveloped response bodies are required to unwrap | ||
| the envelopes prior to responsing. Consequently, in addition to the test | ||
| results below, | ||
| <a href="https://github.com/w3c/vc-bitstring-status-list-test-suite/issues/61">Tradeverifyd reports</a> | ||
| a successful implemention of every feature, including the ability to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to say "implementation of the test cases for every feature"? What I mean is: in abstract, a test case describes a specific, and potentially problematic, situation for handling a status, and the question is whether the implementation handled that situation correctly or not.
If that is the case, it would be preferable to spell this out.
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
|
@TallTed can you remove your blocking change request? They've been addressed/accepted, but for some reason GitHub doesn't know that... |
@iherman this is to address your question in #65 (review)