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

Support registration token UIA type #60

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 23, 2021

Conversation

govynnus
Copy link
Contributor

@govynnus
Copy link
Contributor Author

Not entirely sure I haven't missed something, but I couldn't see any other obvious places additions would be needed

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 23, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #60 (f785a41) into master (1c277e9) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #60      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.53%   68.56%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         134      134              
  Lines        4783     4788       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         3278     3283       +5     
  Misses       1505     1505              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
include/mtx/user_interactive.hpp 92.85% <100.00%> (+0.54%) ⬆️
lib/structs/user_interactive.cpp 94.36% <100.00%> (+0.33%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1c277e9...f785a41. Read the comment docs.

@redsky17
Copy link
Member

So I think this covers everything from the perspective of recognizing the new flow type from the server and also sending the appropriate registration request back. I do know on your MSC proposal, you suggested a validity URL as well. I'm not sure the status of that specific part being included in the final MSC or not, but it might be good to add the piping for that to mtxclient as well.

@deepbluev7 , can you verify that I didn't miss anything? You've spent a lot more time on auth flows than I have =D.

@govynnus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@redsky17 Oh I completely forgot about the validity checking endpoint :D

@deepbluev7
Copy link
Member

These changes look correct to me. Maybe we are missing something, but we can add that, when the code is actually used in Nheko. The validity checking can be done in a separate PR imo. Thank you!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants