Remove faulty requestPermissions implementation in favor of working one #465
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
|
Thanks for the PR, looks good on first glance. I will try and test it soon. |
|
Thank you for your contribution @tjarvstrand |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Tthe current Swift-implentation of
requestPermissionsdoes not return if permissions have already been granted. Thus, if it is called more than once, subsequent attempts try to request permissions again, causing the call to fail with a 400-error (To create or update an all day event you must provide calendar ID, event with a title and event's start date).There was already a second implementation of
requestPermissionswhich wasn't used anywhere but correctly short-circuits if permissions have already been granted so I thought it would be better to use that.EDIT: Actually, the errors seem to be caused by an error on my end. Regardless, this change seems reasonable to me, if less urgent :)