docs: readability, verified reference links, and contract alignment#69
Conversation
…ign §3.3 with contract Readability / onboarding: - Expand Terminology with plain-language entries for DID, DID Document, DID URL/fragment, verificationMethod, verification relationships, service, Multikey/multibase — each linked to its official W3C definition. - Add a friendly one-line abstract opener. - §2.3: add a bytes <-> base32 <-> DID boundary box (on-chain = 16 bytes, off-chain = 26-char string). - §3.2: add a purpose table for the verification relationships. - §4: add a DID lifecycle state diagram (mermaid). - §4.7: new client error-handling table (retry / regenerate / fix / permanent). - §5.4: gloss the Multikey z6Mk encoding instead of just naming it. - §6.4: add a worked proof-of-control signing/payload example. - Annex C: new informative end-to-end walkthrough (register -> resolve -> issue -> prove -> rotate -> transfer -> deactivate). Links: - All new W3C/CID/RFC anchors verified against the live HTML. - Fix two pre-existing broken anchors: did-1.1/#controller -> #x5-1-2-did-controller and cid-1.0/#multikey -> #x2-2-2-multikey. - Add relative links from the spec to contract.rs / model.rs / errors.rs / README. Contract alignment (§3.3 was looser than the contract; now matches validate_record): - id_suffix regex ^[a-z0-9-]+$ -> ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9]$, reject leading/trailing hyphens, require uniqueness across services (DuplicateServiceId). - service_type: state the non-empty requirement (ServiceTypeEmpty). - metadata_hash requires metadata_uri (MetadataInconsistent).
Plan expiredYour subscription has expired. Please renew your subscription to continue using CI/CD integration and other features. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 26 minutes and 53 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file). ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
aguilar1x
changed the title
1 participant
Summary
Follow-up to #68 (which landed the §4.4 mutation-semantics rewrite). This PR adds the readability/onboarding layer, verified reference links, and brings the validation section in line with the contract. Docs-only — no contract code touched.
1. Onboarding / readability
z6MkMultikey encoding.2. Verified reference links
All new W3C/CID/RFC anchors checked against the live HTML (
curl+ anchor grep). Also fixed two pre-existing broken anchors:did-1.1/#controller→#x5-1-2-did-controllercid-1.0/#multikey→#x2-2-2-multikeyAdded relative links from the spec into the contract sources (
contract.rs,model.rs,errors.rs, README).3. Contract alignment fixes (§3.3 was looser than the contract)
Reconciled the validation table with
validate_record:id_suffix:^[a-z0-9-]+$→^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9]$; reject leading/trailing hyphens; require uniqueness across services (DuplicateServiceId, 21).service_type: state the non-empty requirement (ServiceTypeEmpty, 18).metadata_hashrequiresmetadata_uri(MetadataInconsistent, 20).