-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
August-W: Made ServiceProvider more configurable without needing to extend it #20
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
Open
August-W
wants to merge
6
commits into
mx-moth:master
Choose a base branch
from
August-W:master
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+52
−20
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f1a01af
August-W: added setters in sp.py for logout_return_endpoint, default_…
August-W c29c299
August-W: Added checks for None-type endpoints in get_default_login_r…
August-W a419ab6
August-W: cleaned code as per flake8 recommendations
August-W 0a112a7
August-W: cleaned code as per flake8 recommendations again
August-W 57b9eb6
August-W: added setter for entity_id in ServiceProvider so people can…
August-W 6a76c8c
August-W: removed my un-pythonic setters and added some comments
August-W 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
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.
I’m far from sure about this, but shouldn’t the new
entity_idnot also be passed as an argument here, same as the scheme? (And then of course also something at line 345)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 thought about that. The main reason I didn't pass
entity_idthere is that it seemed to be a little outside the scope of what thiscreate_blueprintfunction should do. To me, it makes sense to set theschemetogether with the various endpoints, as they are related. But you could make a case that evenschemedoesn't belong here, as it is setting a value insprather than inidp_bp.I'm open to including
entity_idor removingscheme. Maybe creating a separateconfig_and_create_blueprintfunction which sets theentity_idandschemeand then callscreate_blueprint. Or other ideas? Not sure what the cleanest solution is.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.
Aah, yeah, got it. In that case I’m out of my depth, I wouldn’t know what the cleanest solution would be I’m afraid.