-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
[MS-1352] MFID: Accessing a correct scanned credential field to build an Identification response #1594
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
Merged
alexandr-simprints
merged 2 commits into
release/2025.4.1
from
MS-1352-mfid-credential-returned-in-the-identification-response-is-wrong-if-it-was-edited
Feb 17, 2026
Merged
[MS-1352] MFID: Accessing a correct scanned credential field to build an Identification response #1594
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am very confused - the PR description is about returning the edited value but the changes are only about tokenising the previously provided value.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Previously it was accessing the initially captured value, which is unencrypted:
ScannedCredential::scannedValueNot it is accessing the final credential value, which is encrypted:
ScannedCredential::credentialSee here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was confused by the same. Why aren't we encrypting
scannedValue, too? It will be the actual credential in > 99% of cases and having it saved as plain string kind of makescredentialencryption pointless.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The purpose of the scanned value is for evaluation of how off was scanned value from the final value (stored as
credential), see here and hereI see why it might be confusing, I have plans to refactor the returning types a bit for easier separation of concerns. Currently, the
ScannedCredentialis assigned too much responsibilities that arose as a consequence of the changed requirementsUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can see why we'd want both the scanned and the final values. However, encrypting just the final one doesn't make much sense. Is there any reason for this discrepancy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIRC, we have one event that requires both so that we can see how often attendants need to edit ORC results.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My question is not why we keep both but why we encrypt only one of them? They are supposed to be the same values in > 99% of cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FSR :D