Versions Compared

Old Version 9

changes.mady.by.user Stephen Curran

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Stephen Curran

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Summary:

Excerpt

Topics:

  • Code Coverage – an update
  • Dependabot PRs – actions
  • 1.0.0 Progress
  • The --no-transport  start up option
  • Open Discussion

...

Recordings From the Call:  
Widget Connector
urlhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=V8aEg2FvphE


Hyperledger is committed to creating a safe and welcoming

community for all. For more information

please visit the Hyperledger Code of Conduct.

Welcome, Introductions and Announcements

...

  • Code Coverage – an update
  • Dependabot PRs – actions
    • Last ACA-Pug's presentation on GHA Action for dependencies has been merged and we have PRs.
    • Now we do something about them.
      • Steps:
        • Close any that don't make sense for ACA-Py – e.g. upgrading from Python 3.9 to 3.12 based on a dependabot PR.
        • For the rest – create a new PR and manually apply each dependabot PR to that PR, and submit it.
          • Once it is merged, dependabot will close all of its PRs that are no longer necessary.
      • Manually group into a single/several PRs.
          •  
        • Could do this in two or three steps, depending on the number of PRs to process:
          • All Dependabot ACA-Py dependency PRs that pass the tests.
          • The rest of the Dependabot ACA-Py dependency PRs, with a focus on testing what gets broken by the dependency updates.
          • The Dependabot Docker PRs for demos, and the like – those not related to ACA-Py dependencies.
      • Document the process in a "handlingDependabotPRs.md" file
  • --no-transport  start up option PR 2990 
  • Discussion: Considering dropping BBS Signature support for now?
    • Issue: The current BBS Library does not have an Arm artifact, so we can support Mac M1 (etc.) devices natively.
      • Request for help in upgrading from BBS Library supplier (MattrGlobal) has not been answered.  
      • Impact – almost unusable on a Mac right now.
    • Options:
      • Create Docker images that don't have BBS SIgnatures Signatures included, and provide guidance on install time changes needed to add it.
        • Kind of like a plugin – deployers must explicitly add BBS vs. expecting to be there. 
        • Variation: Multiple tags – e.g. one with a different tag for "with BBS" and "without BBS".
          • What goes in the current tag, what goes in the version with the new tag?
      • Switch to another implementation?
        • Multiple, non-interoperable implementations.  It's not clear which one to switch to.
      • **THE "CORRECT" OPTION – BUT MORE WORK** Move current implementation to a plugin
        • Allows those using it (is there anyone?) to use the plugin.
        • This is the pattern we are moving to – removing from core.
        • Allows for other implementations in the same pattern.
      • Drop the support for now.
        • The "next gen" BBS signatures implementations are coming – wait for them and add back then.
    • Comments from chat:
      • 08:50:41     From Daniel Bluhm : I have the same question as Patrick; if it's not getting used or is pretty far out of spec, is it worth going through the effort of keeping it going?
      • 08:50:51     From Colton Wolkins : #4 drops it completely, instead of allowing it as an option (from my understanding)
      • 08:52:45     From Daniel Bluhm : Plugin-ifying would probably require the most development effort to execute
      • 08:53:07     From Daniel Bluhm : There are some hacky spots to support BBS keys that would need to be addressed
      • 08:56:43     From Daniel Bluhm : We've been able to work around it for our development focus for those on my team using M*, though it is a frequent headache still. Just not blocking.
      • 08:57:53     From Colton Wolkins : Isn't it by running the containers in amd64 mode or something like that?
      • 08:57:54     From Emiliano Suñé : "We've been able to work around it for our development focus for those on my team using M*, though it is a frequent headache still. Just not blocking". Do you have tips/recommendations we may want to include in the docs in the meantime for this? I usually happen to switch to using arm64 right after I forgot what I did the time before to get it working...
      • 08:58:46     From Emiliano Suñé : If you are running the image you can specify the platform, but if you are developing (i.e.: devcontainer) it will complain about the architecture when installing dependencies in the first place since the proper binaries are not available
      • 09:00:07     From Colton Wolkins : I don't have a Mac, so I can't 100% vouch for this, but I'm seeing this export internally @Emiliano Suñé : export DOCKER_DEFAULT_PLATFORM=linux/amd64
      • 09:00:08     From Colton Wolkins : [This is an encrypted message]
      • 09:00:14     From Daniel Bluhm : We haven't gotten into the habit of using devcontainers (yet) at least but yeah, it's that platform flag that we use, specifying linux/amd64
  • Official Releases
    • Pradeep to put in a PR with his suggestion for LTS handling.
  • AnonCreds Rust Revocation Issue in ACA-Py – status - Anoncreds Revoking one credential of many of the same type fails proof
  • Open Discussion

...