Skip to content
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: persist leading zero #1836

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sairanjit
Copy link
Contributor

  • This fixes the removal of the leading zeroes

Signed-off-by: Sai Ranjit Tummalapalli <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sai Ranjit Tummalapalli <[email protected]>
Comment on lines 54 to 58
// If value is a number string with leading zero and not a decimal return as number string
if (isString(value) && !isNaN(Number(value)) && !isDecimal(value) && hasLeadingZero(value)) {
return value.toString()
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the value is not a number we still need to encode it as a number.

So i would expand the next if statement to also add && !hadLeadingZero.

Otherwise it will reach the end as be encoded as any other string (by hashing)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You either need to encode it as a number and remove the leading zero, or you need to encode it as a normal string

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think adding !hasLeadingZero(value) in the next if statement resolves it.

Signed-off-by: Sai Ranjit Tummalapalli <[email protected]>
Comment on lines 54 to 58
// If value is a number string with leading zero and not a decimal return as number string
if (isString(value) && !isNaN(Number(value)) && !isDecimal(value) && hasLeadingZero(value)) {
return value.toString()
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can be removed now right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay If I remove that then the number 0678 is hashed instead it should return a number right ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A number with a leading zero is not a valid number i think for AnonCreds

@berendsliedrecht we had an issue with leading 0 before in AnonCreds. What's the behavior there so we can match it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@TimoGlastra This PR fix leading zero bug in AnonCreds has some fixes.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah so it trims the leading 0's. We'd have to fix it in anoncreds as well.

I think it's best to treat strings with leading 0's as a string. If you want it as a number, just remove the leading 0's manually.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we also have to adjust in AnonCreds RS, as that's where the values are transformed for the credential.

We should keep behavior the same beteeen the two

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

according to https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/blob/50d148b812c45af3fc847c1e7033b084683dceb7/features/0592-indy-attachments/README.md#notes-on-encoding-claims we should keep the leading zeroes in the raw values and strip them in the encoded value.

I think it's best to treat strings with leading 0's as a string.

That would mean that integer strings with leading zeroes can not be used for predicates as the encoded value will be used for that.

The use of AnonCreds predicates, such as proving "older than 21" based on a date of birth claim without sharing the date of birth, is based on an expression involving the encoded value. Thus, only raw integers or string integers can be used in AnonCreds predicates.

I think we should follow the structure for the encoding claims (I think which already happens correctly in anoncreds-rs) and we should maybe open an issue if a claim requires leading zeroes if that can be enabled somehow.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay makes sense, so what should change in Credo then?

Copy link
Contributor

@berendsliedrecht berendsliedrecht Apr 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nothing, this PR contradicts the definition of the RFC. There is absolutely a valid use case for leading zero numbers in claims, but that should change in the RFC and then we can update accordingly. I would not want to deviate from the specs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@berendsliedrecht I agree with you if we need to update the logic we should change in RFC first. @TimoGlastra Can we close this PR as of now ?

Signed-off-by: Sai Ranjit Tummalapalli <[email protected]>
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.

3 participants