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

chore(IT Wallet): [SIW-2032] Add collapsible credential claims in RP trust screen #6749

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gispada
Copy link
Collaborator

@gispada gispada commented Feb 24, 2025

Short description

This PR adds collapsible claim lists grouped by credentials in the Relying Party's trust screen.

List of changes proposed in this pull request

  • Used the new component ClaimsSelector from io-app-design-system
  • Restored ItwRequestedClaimsList and removed those components superseded by ClaimsSelector
  • Added route in ITW playground

Note

This section uses several mock parts as the full presentation flow is not yet implemented.

How to test

Go to IT Wallet playground and navigate to the Remote Presentation trust screen.

android.mp4

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Jira Pull Request Link

This Pull Request refers to Jira issues:

Copy link
Contributor

PR Title Validation for conventional commit type

All good! PR title follows the conventional commit type.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 31.57895% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 50.74%. Comparing base (99a2fbc) to head (9544bb0).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...remote/screens/ItwRemoteClaimsDisclosureScreen.tsx 12.50% 7 Missing ⚠️
...let/issuance/components/ItwRequestedClaimsList.tsx 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
...rounds/components/ItwRemotePresentationSection.tsx 25.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6749      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.94%   50.74%   +8.80%     
==========================================
  Files        1429     1577     +148     
  Lines       29960    32582    +2622     
  Branches     6662     7288     +626     
==========================================
+ Hits        12566    16535    +3969     
+ Misses      17364    16004    -1360     
- Partials       30       43      +13     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...s/features/itwallet/common/utils/itwClaimsUtils.ts 92.63% <ø> (ø)
ts/features/itwallet/common/utils/itwMocksUtils.ts 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...screens/ItwIssuanceCredentialTrustIssuerScreen.tsx 33.33% <ø> (ø)
...res/itwallet/playgrounds/screens/ItwPlayground.tsx 33.33% <ø> (ø)
...let/issuance/components/ItwRequestedClaimsList.tsx 12.12% <57.14%> (ø)
...rounds/components/ItwRemotePresentationSection.tsx 25.00% <25.00%> (ø)
...remote/screens/ItwRemoteClaimsDisclosureScreen.tsx 18.18% <12.50%> (-0.57%) ⬇️

... and 430 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 99a2fbc...9544bb0. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Collaborator

@RiccardoMolinari95 RiccardoMolinari95 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@mastro993 mastro993 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Comment on lines +112 to +117
<Alert
variant="info"
content={I18n.t(
"features.itWallet.presentation.selectiveDisclosure.optionalClaimsAlert"
)}
/>
Copy link
Contributor

@mastro993 mastro993 Feb 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

According to the design, we should hide this alert if all optional claims are selected. Am I right?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems so, but I think there are discrepancies in the design: see here.

However there is a bit of uncertainty about optional claims if we consider the DQCL specs, that do not provide an explicit way to mark claims as optional. I think we're inevitably going to rework this screen in the future, so I'd leave it like this if you agree.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants