Implementation not according to spec about siwe HOT 3 OPEN

Thank you for the issue, we should review the regex for any discrepancies. It does seem that requiring the statement by specifying at least one character could create a more regular message format, which may be preferable. I think it's also a reasonable suggestion to require the presence resources when "Resources:\n" exists, but this could prevent users from expressing a resource section of zero resources as opposed to an omitted resources section.

I would also like to note that the in-production implementations use the ABNF grammar from the spec directly implemented here, so this shouldn't affect any applications relying on this library to create/validate SIWE messages for anyone following this issue. The regex is provided as an alternative for implementation that can be leveraged when no ABNF parsers are available or for performance.

from siwe.

Also, this implementation does not allow for the schema to be present with the domain:

sign-in-with-ethereum =
    [ scheme "://" ] domain %s" wants you to sign in with your Ethereum account:" LF
    address LF
    LF
    [ statement LF ]
    LF
    %s"URI: " uri LF
    %s"Version: " version LF
    %s"Chain ID: " chain-id LF
    %s"Nonce: " nonce LF
    %s"Issued At: " issued-at
    [ LF %s"Expiration Time: " expiration-time ]
    [ LF %s"Not Before: " not-before ]
    [ LF %s"Request ID: " request-id ]
    [ LF %s"Resources:"
    resources ]

scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
    ; See RFC 3986 for the fully contextualized
    ; definition of "scheme".

localhost:3000 wants you to sign in with your Ethereum account: ...  ✅
http://localhost:3000 wants you to sign in with your Ethereum account: ... ❌

According to the spec, that should be parsed but it fails.

from siwe.

Also, this implementation does not allow for the schema to be present with the domain:

This should have been fixed with #195 which was released as part of [email protected]. If you still have issues with the scheme, would you mind opening a new issue?

from siwe.