-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
fix(verify)!: Remove default none
support verify
methods, and require it to be explicitly configured
#851
Merged
Merged
fix(verify)!: Remove default none
support verify
methods, and require it to be explicitly configured
#851
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1a95784
fix(sign&verify)!: Remove default none support from sign and verify m…
jakelacey2012 4021b3c
fix: add back old test
jakelacey2012 d46a1f6
chore: white space
jakelacey2012 5705a41
fix: secretOrPublicKey toString() of undefined
jakelacey2012 32ca143
fix: add coverage should not be able to verify unsigned token when se…
jakelacey2012 6ab90a5
fix: add back comment
jakelacey2012 c673e4f
chore: remove none documentation
jakelacey2012 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
We may be able to revert all these test changes with the latest change to
sign
. What do you think?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.
We would be able to revert but the places that we use none and verify we would need to configure that algorithm explicitly, do you see an advantage in using
none
in these tests or was comment more about making the PR as small as possible?I think I prefer using
HS256
for example rather thannone
, since its something we don't want to encourage and should be used in exceptional cases. Also means in the tests we just configure the algorithm, the secret and no options for the verify - the alternative seems verbose and repetitive IMO.Let me know what you think :)
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.
Yep agreed :)