chore: merge branch 'main' into 0.3.0-pre

[genaris]

Merging 0.2.3 and 0.2.4 features into 0.3.x branch:

• All tests pass
• Demo works
• Action Menu module was added to the core for the moment

Hope to not have missed anything. Please double check!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1030 (ea2a390) into 0.3.0-pre (991151b) will increase coverage by 0.43%.
The diff coverage is 87.62%.

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##           0.3.0-pre    #1030      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      87.80%   88.24%   +0.43%     
=============================================
  Files            644      680      +36     
  Lines          15225    15873     +648     
  Branches        2467     2548      +81     
=============================================
+ Hits           13369    14007     +638     
- Misses          1851     1861      +10     
  Partials           5        5              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/core/src/agent/helpers.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...es/core/src/decorators/service/ServiceDecorator.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../connections/handlers/ConnectionResponseHandler.ts	82.85% <ø> (ø)
...modules/connections/repository/ConnectionRecord.ts	95.65% <ø> (ø)
...ges/core/src/modules/credentials/CredentialsApi.ts	87.73% <0.00%> (-0.84%)	⬇️
.../methods/peer/createPeerDidDocumentFromServices.ts	96.42% <ø> (ø)
packages/core/src/modules/proofs/ProofsApi.ts	83.90% <0.00%> (-0.98%)	⬇️
packages/core/src/transport/WsOutboundTransport.ts	9.09% <0.00%> (-0.14%)	⬇️
packages/core/src/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/core/src/utils/validators.ts	60.71% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 85 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[TimoGlastra]

Should this be uncommented? Otherwise we can remove it I think?

[genaris]

Yeah, I've noticed this in main branch. Not sure why those commented lines remained there, but I'll check.

How do you think this PR should be merged? Should it be a merge commit or a squashed one as regular PRs? If the first approach is taken, maybe I can leave this work for the further action-menu modularisation task (in order to not add more commits here)

[TimoGlastra]

One comment, but otherwise looks good to me! Thanks for doing this @genaris!

[TimoGlastra]

It seems DCO is failing. I think I could bypass, but worried that it will cause issues when we merge 0.3.0 into main

[genaris]

It seems DCO is failing. I think I could bypass, but worried that it will cause issues when we merge 0.3.0 into main

Yes, it's something that annoys me too. Do you know why it happens, since the original commits were correctly signed-off (or at least somehow passed it at that time)?

Probably, if DCO keeps failing, we can rebase this branch just before merging it into main. I don't want to do it now because I'm afraid that it will break some ongoing PRs, but I'm not an expert on this... I wanted to keep using SVN! 😝

[genaris]

Allright, I've re-updated this branch to match current 0.3.0-pre and main and did some local tests: first, I've created a PR of this branch against my 0.3.0-pre (using squash & merge), and then a PR from my 0.3.0-pre to my main. Results of a potential merge into main can be seen in https://github.com/2060-io/aries-framework-javascript/commits/main-merged. Not so bad: just a few extra Merge commits and the commit history is mostly fine.

I couldn't test the DCO issue (maybe we could create copies of 0.3.0-pre and main in hyperledger repo to do a final test). However, as far as I can see, in #965 there was already a DCO issue that you set to pass with the magic button and currently 0.3.0-pre branch is fine.