we decided that we want password users to confirm their password before we delete their account on the identity service. since OPAQUE is a 2-part process, this means we need two new RPCs for password users and the existing RPC can be repurposed for wallet users.
Details
Details
tested on web and native later in the stack by calling the client methods
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCOMM Comm
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
| services/identity/src/client_service.rs | ||
|---|---|---|
| 306 ↗ | (On Diff #38914) | threw this change in, but it's not really related to the diff. just noticed that we were using the wrong status here |
| services/identity/src/database.rs | ||
| 958 ↗ | (On Diff #38914) | this didn't need to be pub |
| shared/protos/identity_auth.proto | ||
| 54–57 ↗ | (On Diff #38914) | technically these could be unauth protos since they require a password.... but it seemed weird to split up the delete RPCs and i couldn't imagine a scenario where we'd want a user without an access token to be able to delete their account |
Comment Actions
Proto changes make sense to me
| web/grpc/identity-service-client-wrapper.js | ||
|---|---|---|
| 133 ↗ | (On Diff #38914) | Hmmm... do we actually want to allow account deletion on a secondary device? I think in the whitepaper so far we are requiring the primary device to initiate. Since web can't be a primary device (at this time, anyways) this might save us some work |
| web/grpc/identity-service-client-wrapper.js | ||
|---|---|---|
| 133 ↗ | (On Diff #38914) | removing this |
| services/identity/src/grpc_services/authenticated.rs | ||
|---|---|---|
| 335 | This change made all requests to delete_wallet_user for password users fail. But the diff also updates the clients to call delete_wallet_user for password users. This should have been caught in review | |