View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0009661Talerexchangepublic2025-05-10 02:11
ReporterFlorian Dold Assigned ToChristian Grothoff Resolution deadline
ImplementerReviewer 
Release signed byDeployed by 
VerifierCommunicator 
Data protection authority notification requiredNo  
CSIRT notification requiredNo  
Estimated effort (hours)Actual effort (hours)0 
Fast-trackNo
Work packagenone
PrioritynormalSeverityfeatureReproducibilityN/A
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Target Version1.0Fixed in Version1.0 
Summary0009661: consider storing metadata about attribute collections
DescriptionThat way the UI can properly show the "index" of the AML file without having to fetch *all* attributes including large files.

Candidates for meta-data are:
* Form ID and version
* Who submitted the form (AMLO vs customer)
Tagscompliance

Required notifications

Address or linkRemarkAdded byNotifiedActions

Activities

Christian Grothoff

2025-04-17 20:33

manager   ~0024598

I thought this was already done? Please check, and if so, resolve!

sebasjm

2025-04-21 10:48

developer   ~0024626

on kyc upload we are storing: TalerFormAttributes.FORM_ID and TalerFormAttributes.FORM_VERSION
on aml decision we are storing: TalerFormAttributes.FORM_ID and TalerFormAttributes.FORM_VERSION

I thought we already established that if the form was completed by kyc it means that it was completed by the customer and aml it means by the officer.
Do we need more information?

Christian Grothoff

2025-04-21 11:27

manager   ~0024627

I think we may have both mis-read the bug: I think Florian wants the *exchange* database to store the form_id in a separate column so we can select it or select by it. Correct?

Florian Dold

2025-04-22 09:52

manager   ~0024645

Last edited: 2025-04-22 11:24

Exactly. I'm not quite sure this is a 1.0 bug, but I imagine that "show the latest filled out form $X" could be a common action in the AML SPA.

Christian Grothoff

2025-04-22 10:56

manager   ~0024646

Well, extracting the form ID into a PG-column _later_ is tricky, as we encrypt the attributes inside the DB. So I guess that justifies 1.0, but makes it *my* issue (to at least change the DB schema).

Christian Grothoff

2025-04-22 21:20

manager   ~0024652

Columns added in d160847fc..d9a2f5aa6 (only form_name and submitter type; form_version makes little sense IMO -- if you're looking for say a vqf-902.11, you unlikely care if it is 2022 or 2023-edition.d160847fc..d9a2f5aa6

Issue History

Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2025-03-26 12:24Florian DoldNew Issue
2025-03-26 12:24Florian DoldStatusnew => assigned
2025-03-26 12:24Florian DoldAssigned To => Christian Grothoff
2025-03-26 12:25Florian DoldSummaryconsider storing (indexed) metadata about attribute collections => consider storing metadata about attribute collections
2025-03-28 05:50Christian GrothoffAssigned ToChristian Grothoff =>
2025-03-28 05:50Christian GrothoffStatusassigned => implementing
2025-04-17 20:32Christian GrothoffTag Attached: compliance
2025-04-17 20:32Christian GrothoffAssigned To => sebasjm
2025-04-17 20:32Christian GrothoffStatusimplementing => assigned
2025-04-17 20:33Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0024598
2025-04-17 20:33Christian GrothoffTarget Version1.1 => 1.0
2025-04-21 10:48sebasjmNote Added: 0024626
2025-04-21 10:48sebasjmAssigned Tosebasjm => Florian Dold
2025-04-21 10:48sebasjmStatusassigned => feedback
2025-04-21 11:27Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0024627
2025-04-22 09:52Florian DoldNote Added: 0024645
2025-04-22 10:56Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0024646
2025-04-22 10:56Christian GrothoffAssigned ToFlorian Dold => Christian Grothoff
2025-04-22 10:57Christian GrothoffStatusfeedback => assigned
2025-04-22 11:24Florian DoldNote Edited: 0024645
2025-04-22 21:20Christian GrothoffStatusassigned => informing
2025-04-22 21:20Christian GrothoffResolutionopen => fixed
2025-04-22 21:20Christian GrothoffFixed in Version => 1.0
2025-04-22 21:20Christian GrothoffNote Added: 0024652
2025-05-10 02:11Christian GrothoffStatusinforming => closed