Ping @strongbox-mark

Hi @varjolintu, thanks for the heads up!

We'll need to do some migration for this change as we have a lot of users now using the older name. I'll try get that into our next release.

I think, if it is at all possible, we should now freeze these things and consider them "API", this is the contract we can use to remain interoperable. I understand it is nice to have nice naming for these fields, but at the end of the day, it seems borderline cosmetic. I think we probably don't even want to show these field names to an end user (currently we show "Credential ID" to our users) in the normal view anyway.

If there are some users who are unhappy about this, I think the time to speak up was before this feature went live, during our development/design phase, and before thousands of users had already created their passkeys.

Fingers crossed we're good now, and thanks again for letting me know. :)

I absolutely agree with Mark, which is why I didn't quickly hit the merge button here. What is the cost of this switch in naming convention? It is entirely internal to the programs so we could "read" both fields and prefer the new one of it exists and matches the data pattern we expect.

Overall, I recommend no change here except to export the correct field to json. Keep the internal field name the same.

Thanks for the feedback. I agree, let's only change the JSON content.

That's great, thanks guys! Saves me a bunch of work :) Cheers

In fairness, this isn't in the release yet. I don't think anything should be considered final spec until it is. People will inevitably find things to change still during testing.