feat: add did:webvh controlller service #487

3kz2501 · 2025-02-05T08:03:43Z

No description provided.

…ller_serivces

3kz2501 · 2025-02-06T04:08:07Z

protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs

+            <x25519_dalek::PublicKey as Into<Jwk>>::into(keyring.encrypt.get_public_key());
+
+        let mut log_entry = DidLogEntry::new(path)?;
+        let update_keypair = keyring.update;


Keyring has not been modified to remain temporarily compatible with sidetree.As soon as we have finished integrating did:webvh into the Agent, we will change it to the correct naming and so on.

I think that incompatible points is not only naming but also key type.
I implement JWK of ed25519. You should use appropriate JWK type.

nodex/protocol/src/keyring/jwk.rs

Lines 132 to 159 in 8deca4c

impl TryFrom<&Jwk> for ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey {

type Error = JwkToEd25519Error;

fn try_from(value: &Jwk) -> Result<Self, Self::Error> {

if value.crv != "Ed25519" {

return Err(JwkToEd25519Error::DifferentCrv);

}

let pk = BASE64URL_NOPAD

.decode(value.x.as_bytes())

.map_err(|e| JwkToEd25519Error::Decode(Some(e)))?;

let pk: [u8; 32] = pk.try_into().map_err(|_| JwkToEd25519Error::Decode(None))?;

Ok(ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey::from_bytes(&pk)?)

}

}

impl From<&ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey> for Jwk {

fn from(value: &ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey) -> Self {

let x = BASE64URL_NOPAD.encode(value.as_bytes());

let kty = "OKP".to_string();

let crv = "Ed25519".to_string();

Jwk {

kty,

crv,

x,

y: None,

}

}

}

3kz2501 · 2025-02-06T04:08:35Z

protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs

+        // if prerotation is enabled, add the prerotation key to the next_key_hashes
+        if enable_prerotation {
+            let prerotation_pub_key =
+                multibase_encode(&keyring.recovery.get_public_key().to_sec1_bytes());


Same here.

Keyring has not been modified to remain temporarily compatible with sidetree.As soon as we have finished integrating did:webvh into the Agent, we will change it to the correct naming and so on.

tzskp1

Strictly a comment on the previous PR, but I think Option<Vec<_>> is sufficient for Vec<_>>

diff --git a/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_document.rs b/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_document.rs
index d52ad76..96e953a 100644
--- a/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_document.rs
+++ b/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_document.rs
@@ -20,10 +20,10 @@ pub struct DidDocument {
     pub id: Did,
     #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
     pub deactivated: Option<bool>,
-    #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
-    pub verification_method: Option<Vec<VerificationMethod>>,
-    #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
-    pub authentication: Option<Vec<String>>,
+    #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Vec::is_empty")]
+    pub verification_method: Vec<VerificationMethod>,
+    #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Vec::is_empty")]
+    pub authentication: Vec<String>,
     #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
     pub assertion_method: Option<Vec<String>>,
     #[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
@@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ impl DidDocument {
         Self {
             context: vec!["https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1".to_string()],
             id,
-            verification_method: None,
-            authentication: None,
+            verification_method: vec![],
+            authentication: vec![],
             assertion_method: None,
             key_agreement: None,
             capability_invocation: None,
@@ -86,22 +86,16 @@ impl DidDocument {
     }
 
     pub fn add_verification_method(&mut self, verification_method: VerificationMethod) {
-        if self.verification_method.is_none() {
-            self.verification_method = Some(vec![]);
-        }
-        self.verification_method
-            .as_mut()
-            .unwrap()
-            .push(verification_method);
+        self.verification_method.push(verification_method);
     }
 
     pub fn get_key(&self, key_type: &str) -> Result<Jwk, GetPublicKeyError> {
         let did = &self.id;
-        let public_key = self.verification_method.as_ref().and_then(|v| {
-            v.iter()
-                .find(|vm| vm.id.ends_with(key_type))
-                .and_then(|vm| vm.public_key_jwk.as_ref())
-        });
+        let public_key = self
+            .verification_method
+            .iter()
+            .find(|vm| vm.id.ends_with(key_type))
+            .and_then(|vm| vm.public_key_jwk.as_ref());
         public_key
             .cloned()
             .ok_or_else(|| GetPublicKeyError::PublicKeyNotFound(did.to_string()))
diff --git a/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_log_entry.rs b/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_log_entry.rs
index bb5401f..8bca4c1 100644
--- a/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_log_entry.rs
+++ b/protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_log_entry.rs
@@ -256,12 +256,10 @@ impl DidLogEntry {
             .map_err(|_| DidLogEntryError::InvalidState)?
             .replace_scid(scid);
         self.state.id = did.get_did().clone();
-        if let Some(verification_methods) = self.state.verification_method.as_mut() {
-            for verification_method in verification_methods.iter_mut() {
-                // id is did#key format, so only need to replace the did part
-                verification_method.id = verification_method.id.replace(DIDWEBVH_PLACEHOLDER, scid);
-                verification_method.controller = did.get_did().clone();
-            }
+        for verification_method in self.state.verification_method.iter_mut() {
+            // id is did#key format, so only need to replace the did part
+            verification_method.id = verification_method.id.replace(DIDWEBVH_PLACEHOLDER, scid);
+            verification_method.controller = did.get_did().clone();
         }
 
         Ok(())
@@ -321,15 +319,13 @@ impl DidLogEntry {
 
     // calculate the next key hashes by the Update Keys from the previous entry.
     pub fn calc_next_key_hash(&self, keys: &[String]) -> Result<Vec<String>, DidLogEntryError> {
-        let generate_hashed_keys = |keys: &[String]| {
-            keys.iter()
-                .map(|key| {
-                    generate_multihash_with_base58_encode(key.as_bytes())
-                        .map_err(|_| DidLogEntryError::FaildMultihash)
-                })
-                .collect::<Result<Vec<String>, DidLogEntryError>>()
-        };
-        let next_key_hashes = generate_hashed_keys(keys)?;
+        let next_key_hashes = keys
+            .iter()
+            .map(|key| {
+                generate_multihash_with_base58_encode(key.as_bytes())
+                    .map_err(|_| DidLogEntryError::FaildMultihash)
+            })
+            .collect::<Result<Vec<String>, DidLogEntryError>>()?;
         Ok(next_key_hashes)
     }
 }
diff --git a/protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs b/protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs
index bec82fe..a9d9605 100644
--- a/protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs
+++ b/protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ where
         if enable_prerotation {
             let prerotation_pub_key =
                 multibase_encode(&keyring.recovery.get_public_key().to_sec1_bytes());
-            let prerotation_keys = vec![prerotation_pub_key.clone()];
+            let prerotation_keys = vec![prerotation_pub_key];
             let next_key_hases = log_entry.calc_next_key_hash(&prerotation_keys)?;
             log_entry.parameters.next_key_hashes = Some(next_key_hases);
         }

tzskp1 · 2025-02-10T04:31:27Z

protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs

+}
+
+#[trait_variant::make(Send)]
+pub trait DidWebvhService: Sync {


I think that such naming like *Service is not good.
In this case, something like DidWebvhController would be better.

tzskp1 · 2025-02-10T04:47:48Z

protocol/src/did_webvh/service/controller/did_webvh_controller_service.rs

+            <x25519_dalek::PublicKey as Into<Jwk>>::into(keyring.encrypt.get_public_key());
+
+        let mut log_entry = DidLogEntry::new(path)?;
+        let update_keypair = keyring.update;


I think that incompatible points is not only naming but also key type.
I implement JWK of ed25519. You should use appropriate JWK type.

nodex/protocol/src/keyring/jwk.rs

Lines 132 to 159 in 8deca4c

impl TryFrom<&Jwk> for ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey {

type Error = JwkToEd25519Error;

fn try_from(value: &Jwk) -> Result<Self, Self::Error> {

if value.crv != "Ed25519" {

return Err(JwkToEd25519Error::DifferentCrv);

}

let pk = BASE64URL_NOPAD

.decode(value.x.as_bytes())

.map_err(|e| JwkToEd25519Error::Decode(Some(e)))?;

let pk: [u8; 32] = pk.try_into().map_err(|_| JwkToEd25519Error::Decode(None))?;

Ok(ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey::from_bytes(&pk)?)

}

}

impl From<&ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey> for Jwk {

fn from(value: &ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey) -> Self {

let x = BASE64URL_NOPAD.encode(value.as_bytes());

let kty = "OKP".to_string();

let crv = "Ed25519".to_string();

Jwk {

kty,

crv,

x,

y: None,

}

}

}

tzskp1 · 2025-02-10T04:57:47Z

protocol/src/did_webvh/domain/did_log_entry.rs

-    pub fn calc_next_key_hash(&self, keys: &Vec<String>) -> Result<Self, DidLogEntryError> {
-        let generate_hashed_keys = |keys: &Vec<String>| {
+    pub fn calc_next_key_hash(&self, keys: &[String]) -> Result<Vec<String>, DidLogEntryError> {
+        let generate_hashed_keys = |keys: &[String]| {


I think that this temporary closure is not required.
How about this one?

let next_key_hashes = keys .iter() .map(|key| { generate_multihash_with_base58_encode(key.as_bytes()) .map_err(|_| DidLogEntryError::FaildMultihash) }) .collect::<Result<Vec<String>, DidLogEntryError>>()?; Ok(next_key_hashes)

3kz2501 added 3 commits January 30, 2025 16:11

add infra layer

6e64b38

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feat/did_webvh/contro…

bc8c659

…ller_serivces

add did_webvh controller service and infra trait

08f6ba6

3kz2501 self-assigned this Feb 5, 2025

3kz2501 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 5, 2025 08:03

3kz2501 requested a review from tzskp1 February 5, 2025 08:03

3kz2501 marked this pull request as draft February 5, 2025 08:03

3kz2501 added 2 commits February 6, 2025 10:40

fix lint error, warning

8a2de8a

fix taplo lint error

592ca8a

3kz2501 commented Feb 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

add get_key function in did_document domain

aef1b31

3kz2501 marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2025 04:35

fix body format to json line

249d051

tzskp1 reviewed Feb 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: add did:webvh controlller service #487

feat: add did:webvh controlller service #487

3kz2501 commented Feb 5, 2025

3kz2501 Feb 6, 2025

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

3kz2501 Feb 6, 2025

tzskp1 left a comment

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

	impl TryFrom<&Jwk> for ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey {
	type Error = JwkToEd25519Error;

	fn try_from(value: &Jwk) -> Result<Self, Self::Error> {
	if value.crv != "Ed25519" {
	return Err(JwkToEd25519Error::DifferentCrv);
	}
	let pk = BASE64URL_NOPAD
	.decode(value.x.as_bytes())
	.map_err(\|e\| JwkToEd25519Error::Decode(Some(e)))?;
	let pk: [u8; 32] = pk.try_into().map_err(\|_\| JwkToEd25519Error::Decode(None))?;
	Ok(ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey::from_bytes(&pk)?)
	}
	}

	impl From<&ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey> for Jwk {
	fn from(value: &ed25519_dalek::VerifyingKey) -> Self {
	let x = BASE64URL_NOPAD.encode(value.as_bytes());
	let kty = "OKP".to_string();
	let crv = "Ed25519".to_string();
	Jwk {
	kty,
	crv,
	x,
	y: None,
	}
	}
	}

feat: add did:webvh controlller service #487

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: add did:webvh controlller service #487

Conversation

3kz2501 commented Feb 5, 2025

3kz2501 Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

3kz2501 Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tzskp1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tzskp1 Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment