Add Document Encryption Service for Doc Escrow#11714
Conversation
I also vote for one image at a time, I think it would simplify the structure and allow for flexibility across multiple flows (with and without selfie) |
adafeeb to
9fc4634
Compare
mitchellhenke
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I lean towards the first option in that documents should be stored and referenced individually
Co-authored-by: Mitchell Henke <mitchell.henke@gsa.gov>
Co-authored-by: Mitchell Henke <mitchell.henke@gsa.gov>
| # cleanup | ||
| File.delete(file_path(result.name)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
another approach to cleanup and writing files to disk would be to make the whole example use a tmpdir, like we do here. We could update the class to take an optional dir argument and pass the path in here, the default value would be the Rails.root.join('tmp') like have it now
identity-idp/spec/lib/i18n_flat_yml_backend_spec.rb
Lines 36 to 41 in 0b303ab
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i considered a couple different approaches to cleanup, but since it was just two specs in different spec files, it seemed fine to just inline it for now. will definitely consider other approaches as we extend it. (unless you feel very strongly about it, then i can update it now!)
|
I will note the passports only have a single image. I don't have a strong opinion about how we handle a single image or 3 images but I think we do need to support it. |
jmhooper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This does look familiar to me. I feel good about this approach.
🎫 Ticket
Link to the relevant ticket:
Add Document Encryption Service for Doc Escrow
🛠 Summary of changes
This change adds an
EncryptedDocStorageservice that will be used for Doc Escrow.Open questions:
This implementation stole liberally from @jmhooper's initial implementation of this service. It currently relies on two images being passed in. Do we think that will always be the case? Is it possible that there might be single images (like a selfie?)
I am wondering if this updated implementation should:
I think I like the first option best, as it makes less assumptions, but does mean multiple encryption keys. Would love to hear other thoughts!