Clarify vs verify verification#

In the key management world one may speak of revoking keys. Yes the term revocation is used in two completely different ways in the identity space. I don't know what language in the spec, if any, we might want to revise to clarify this point, but I think there's no question this must be the understanding we impart. There exists no shared understanding that the issuer has this unilateral ability to escape accountability and reputational consequences for their actions.īesides, if rotating a key cancelled all previous assertions, how would we do the other operation (the one that merely changes future possibilities, without attempting to apply a new lens to the past)? That's because an unknown number of verifiers have already made decisions based on the reputational capital the issuer staked against their assertions allowing the issuer to back out is like letting a borrower off the hook for a mortgage without any loan repayment. If an issuer uses assertionMethod to sign a VC, the issuer cannot say that when they rotate the key, it cancels their commitment to the assertions they once stood behind. We have to be able to tell the difference between rotation (unilaterally change rules for the future) and revocation (joint agreement about how/when to change semantics we apply to the past). Therefore the mortgage is invalid - not because we deny existence of the signature, but because we are viewing the event with different semantics.' But Fred wasn't legally competent when he did so. 'Yes, Fred really did sign this mortgage. With that understanding in place, it's possible to construct mechanisms that allow either party on their own, both parties together, or even third parties to apply new semantics to a historical event, no matter how strongly attested. It presupposes a shared understanding between multiple parties that unambiguous history needs to be given new semantics based on future developments. Rotation cannot be retroactive, because it would give the signer unilateral power to reinterpret history. I can certainly sign a mortgage and then rotate my key this prevents my old key from being used to incur new debts, but it doesn't cancel my old one. The bank gave me money, and I incurred a debt.

If I use assertionMethod to sign a mortgage, I cannot say that when I rotate my key, it invalidates my commitment to pay the mortgage.

It's the non-repudiation that makes them useful. This is the basis for holding a party accountable. The whole point of digital signatures is that they are non-repudiable they commit the signer to a historical action in a way that they can't deny. If you have a few notifications that you want to be checked, then Verify is easier.Already commented on this, but I want to directly answer question. So if you have multiple operations on the Mock OR if you need the mocked method to return a value which will be processed, then Setup + Act + VerifyAll is the way to go It also allows you to check count of calls e.g.

Clarify vs verify verification#

call _mock.Verify(m => m.Operation) : cause verification that Operation was in fact called.

call _mock.VerifyAll() : to cause every expection that you setup in (1) to be verified.

Act - do something that will cause the operations to be triggered.

Explicitly setup all operations you expect to be triggered on the mocked collaborator from the subsequent Act step.

You would use Verify to see if _mockEngine.Ignition() received a call. You would use to Assert to see if car.IsHumming after you invoke car.PushStart() So if you are testing a car object, which has an engine as a collaborator/dependency. Verify is used to check if the collaborators of the SUT were notified or contacted. Assert is used to do checks on the class/object/subject under test (SUT).