feat: Merge anoncreds proof request credentials #118
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Tom Lanser <[email protected]>
But what would make sense? When you click on it that you get the selector of #113 and that they explode again so they get splitted again? Or should we always look for the |
Signed-off-by: Tom Lanser <[email protected]>
| @@ -94,8 +111,11 @@ export function useDidCommPresentationActions(proofExchangeId: string) { | |||
| // This should probably be fixed in AFJ. | |||
| const firstMatch = predicateArray[0] | |||
|
|
|||
| // When the credentialId isn't available, we use the groupName as the key but it will result in multiple entries in the view. But I think it's not an easy task to merge them | |||
| const credentialKey = firstMatch?.credentialId ?? groupName | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe if no credentialId is available we match based on the CREDENTIAL_ prefix like you had before as fallback?
Otherwise there's not an easy way to group them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure brought it back but in the different order 😄
|
I was a bit confused, but see now that #113 hasn't been merged yet 🤦 in my head it was. But your approach probably will also work with that pr, so i think we're good 👍 |
Signed-off-by: Tom Lanser <[email protected]>
TimoGlastra
deleted the
feature/PR-251-merge-multiple-credentials-in-proof
branch
Made it so it favors the way of combining the credentials in Paradym, after that it will combine them based on the credentialId. And if that isn't available it will still use the groupname.
So the groupname will be used when the credential is not available in the wallet and the proof request didn't came from Paradym.