Update stored contacts with deprecated DID Format, respond with SDK Format for outdated Contacts

[LeonFLK]

fixes KILTProtocol/ticket#744

When Contact with deprecated format exists in DB we delete on update and respond SDK format.

How to test:

docker-compose up -d mongodb
start old democlient and old services
register Contact with DID in deprecated format
restart services with this PR included
visit http://localhost:3000/contacts
contact DID should be displayed in updated sdk format

Checklist:

• I have verified that the code works
• I have verified that the code is easy to understand
  • If not, I have left a well-balanced amount of inline comments
• I have left the code in a better state
• I have documented the changes (where applicable)

[rflechtner]

I'm not sure I get what is going on here. We display the outdated DID format in the new format? I think I remember that the problem was that the old signature is just not valid over the new format. Have we solved this somehow?

[LeonFLK]

Hey @rflechtner, sorry that I didn't clarify, though I remember mentioning it to you, the old signature IS valid even for the new format, as the signature is essentially built the same way with the same data and they match .

[rflechtner]

Hey @rflechtner, sorry that I didn't clarify, though I remember mentioning it to you, the old signature IS valid even for the new format, as the signature is essentially built the same way with the same data and they match .

Yeah sorry man I can't seem to remember. So when I run the resulting object through the sdk or the did resolver, they would validate the signature correctly, regardless of whether it was originally part of the old or the new format?

[LeonFLK]

No worries, might have been some time ago 🙄 ...the resulting signatures match!

[rflechtner]

Seems to do what it is supposed to do 👍
I had a hard time reviewing because it was not easy to understand what the original format looked like and what we'd have to do to translate. In-line comments and appropriate typing could help!

[rflechtner]

can we adjust the typing so that it reflects the potential conversion from the old to the new format?
the easiest way to do this would probably be

Suggested change

	private convertToContact(contactDB: ContactDB): Contact {
	private convertToContact(contactDB: ContactDB & {signature?: string} ): Contact {

[LeonFLK]

Yeah, I really wasn't sure how to deal with "shadow" properties, but it seems like this is a great way to deal with potential shadow properties

[rflechtner]

I guess

Suggested change

	did: actualDid,
	did: contactDB.signature && did ? {...did, signature: contactDB.signature} : did,

would also do it?

[rflechtner]

in fact when you add the optional {signature?: string} to the signature you could even make this more concise by adding signature to

const { metaData, did, publicIdentity } = contactDB

[rflechtner]

can you add a comment describing why we need to delete the existing entry first?

[rflechtner]

I.e. why an update just won't do the trick?

[LeonFLK]

Yes, sure, also for here: ran into issues with updating as this keeps the old properties as artifacts or something, it does not exactly replace the stored document, thus not removing the signature outer property.