Making cache_location mandatory #24
Merged
Conversation
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
Minimize the chance of irrelative apps sharing tokens by removing the default centralized location. Alternatively, we could keep the default behavior but use a per-app location such as os.path.join(sys.argv[0] + ".cache"). But we choose to NOT do this flavor this time. It's always easier to add surface area later than to take it away.
marstr
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2019
See if we can bypass the currently-failing OSX environment
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Removing the default centralized location to minimize the chance of irrelative apps sharing tokens.
Alternatively, we could keep the default behavior but use a per-app location such as
os.path.join(sys.argv[0] + ".cache").But we choose to NOT do this flavor this time. It's always easier to add surface area later than to take it away.
PS: Both CI failures below, here and there, seem irrelevant to this PR. We can probably still go ahead and review and approve this PR. We will need to figure it out separately, on how to avoid that failure in upcoming release.The issue was caused by an upstream packaging issue. Now fixed in upstream.