Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
feat: Add dynamic retrieval for client password #1926
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
feat: Add dynamic retrieval for client password #1926
Changes from 3 commits
83e8fa5
1d331b4
2d7f9fd
bafdad5
afc7388
14e4fb5
fe5a246
3b1c2e4
e1d71f8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ohhh nice use on supporting BYOP - not sure how popular BYOP is now that promises have shipped natively in node for years, but still nice for backwards compatibility 👌
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wow - impressive error handling
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apparently not as impressive as @charmander ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(This one still exists)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah i need to turn on linting on the test folder
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would also help if we turned back on the semi rule. This PR passed "make lint" as the semi rule got removed when the eslint config was last cleaned up (by me...).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i apologize the tests here aren't written w/ a modern node testing framework. There's this cost-benefit thing I keep running into where it's like "Should I re-write all these tests into jest/mocha/etc? They already work and I know they work...but maybe rewriting will introduce some breakage." The original tests in the repo were written before mocha or jest existed so it's kinda like...well....if it ain't broke...otoh I feel like it's probably more confusing to contribute to. I also at the time, coming from ruby, thought i'd be 'clever' and attach a bunch of stuff to the global namespace like assert and other things. That was a mistake. :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No worries. I've thought about cleaning up some of them more than once and it's always the same conclusion. Maybe having a separate harness for things going forward as it's definitely easier to write async tests with an async harness. Doesn't even have to be be full on mocha/jest/whatever ... just having something to call out to with async actions should be enough.
I like how you can easily run any one of the tests in this project via "node path/to/test.js".