fix: allow optional field, add extra alg types

[TimoGlastra]

This PR does three things:

• Allow optional in the v2 schema (per @cykoder's comment)
• Add extra alg values ( i don't think we should be matching these at all, now evertime a new value is used it will break)
• Return the errors from the PD validation, as it's now very hard to know what is wrong about the PD (i always add this code manually in node_modules build)

Discovered when trying to handle a presentation request with PD from DanubeTech universal verifier (https://oid4vp.univerifier.io/)

[TimoGlastra]

@nklomp should we just remove the alg value validation? i think this will be more flexible

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.95%. Comparing base (64ac85e) to head (23137eb).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/utils/VCUtils.ts	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
lib/types/SSITypesBuilder.ts	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #173      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    92.81%   89.95%   -2.87%     
===========================================
  Files           66       66              
  Lines         2715     2718       +3     
  Branches       705      705              
===========================================
- Hits          2520     2445      -75     
- Misses         194      255      +61     
- Partials         1       18      +17     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	89.95% <40.00%> (-2.87%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[nklomp]

@nklomp should we just remove the alg value validation? i think this will be more flexible

I rather not. We can always add it. If formats are present they are required If I remember correctly.

[nklomp]

@sanderPostma could you review please?

[sanderPostma]

Mostly LGTM
But I have to talk to Niels about the pnpm version, so will put it on hold for now

[TimoGlastra]

I rather not. We can always add it. If formats are present they are required If I remember correctly.

I think it is a list of allowed/supported formats by the verifier. Not a requirement to support it in the wallet AFAIK?

Hmm okay. It just means that every new alg requires a new release. I think just interpretating it as string, especially because pex doesn't handle the actual crypto makes sense.

So to uodate we need to go pex -> oid4vp -> credo -> paradym. And that's not even for a crypto suite we want to support, but just to parse the presentation definition

Maybe it should at least be configurable from the outside?