Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dereferencing a URL did not result in a valid JSON-LD object #82

Open
cryptobenkei opened this issue Aug 7, 2020 · 7 comments
Open

Comments

@cryptobenkei
Copy link

I've been trying to create my own context and, no matter what, I always get the same result:

jsonld.InvalidUrl: Dereferencing a URL did not result in a valid JSON-LD object. Possible causes are an inaccessible URL perhaps due to a same-origin policy (ensure the server uses CORS if you are using client-side JavaScript), too many redirects, a non-JSON response, or more than one HTTP Link Header was provided for a remote context.

From Apache with Cors enabled, from schema.org, from github...
This is the jsonld : https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Caelumlabs/credentials/master/src/v1.jsonld

In the jsonld online checker everything worked fine.

How can I use schema.org or define my own context?

@mattcollier
Copy link
Contributor

@cryptobenkei
Copy link
Author

Thanks Matt!

@marcvanandel
Copy link

This might also be an issue of the underlying jsonld.js library. The json-ld context of the ed25519-signature-2020 returns a HTTP 304 response with the content ... but the jsonld.js lib interpretes this into a redirect of some sort ... and does not acknowledge the content. Therefor I do get this same error using the ed25519-signature-2020 lib 😞

@davidlehn
Copy link
Member

(See also digitalbazaar/jsonld.js#451 (comment))
@marcvanandel How are you getting a 304? The default jsonld.js node document loader does not send cache headers, so servers should not be sending back 304. The loader should better handle various return codes in any case.

@marcvanandel
Copy link

marcvanandel commented Oct 14, 2022

Hmm... this is strange. I did get back 304 whole day Wednesday and yesterday ... but today it returns a 200 🤔 Using the Brave browser and the network tab of the developer tools ... [edit] Ah... refresh page will return a 304 ...

Still, replacing the 2018 with the 2020 version in 10-verify.spec.js fails with the error of this issue...

If I add the following to the lib/contexts/index.js at least the issue is resolved for the test:

import ed25519Context2020 from 'ed25519-signature-2020-context';

// ...

contexts[ed25519Context2020.constants.CONTEXT_URL] =
  ed25519Context2020.contexts.get(ed25519Context2020.constants.CONTEXT_URL);

(but the test still fails on some part of the 2020 signature)

@Iskandar1211
Copy link

Iskandar1211 commented Aug 17, 2023

I have such a question, please tell me your library supports json-ld or json-schema validation itself
here is an example

const credential = {
      "@context": [
        "https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v1",
        "https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/examples/v1",
        "https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/mycontext",
      ],
      id: "https://example.com/credentials/1872",
      type: ["VerifiableCredential", "AlumniCredential"],
      issuer: "did:example:1234",
      issuanceDate: "2010-01-01T19:23:24Z",
      credentialSubject: {
        id: "did:example:ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21",
        alumniOf: "Apple",
        name: "Bob",
        gender: "Male",
        email: "example@gmail.com",
      },
    };
      "name": "schema:name",
      "gender": "schema:gender",
      "email": "schema:email",

and if I enter into these fields, for example, a number instead of a string, it will still pass and will not be validated for types, tell me how can I do this

@dmitrizagidulin
Copy link
Contributor

@Iskandar1211 - ah, no, this library won't do schema validating (e.g. a number instead of a string). You'll want to use a separate JSON Schema validator library for that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants