This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 16, 2023. It is now read-only.
Make setting app info more extensible #184
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jpcoenen
reviewed
Apr 27, 2020
jpcoenen
reviewed
Apr 30, 2020
jpcoenen
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2020
Merged
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Passing app info to the client is now more extensible, so it can handle:
Where the third layer comes from
SECRETHUB_APP_INFO_NAME.It can now also handle more layers of 'wrapped clients', e.g.:
Validation
But with greater extensibility, comes greater validation: when using
SECRETHUB_APP_INFO_NAME, it ignores values if they don't match[a-zA-Z0-9_-]and when explicitly settingWithAppInfoit actually errors, because as an SDK consumer you'll want to immediately know if (and why) your supplied value didn't come through.Note: there's no validation on the app info version number at the moment, because next to the regular x.y.z versions, there also versions like commit hashes showing up sometimes and it's probably more desirable to have those come through, than have them ignored (or rejected). Agreed? Or should we see if we can find at least some layer of validation there?