Skip to content
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

Removing need to client_secret during password grants for public clients #41

Closed

Conversation

adamcharnock
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed in issues #21 and #25. This provides a more rigerous check
of the circumstances required for the client_secret to forgone.

(includes tests)

As discussed in issues caffeinehit#21 and caffeinehit#25. This provides a more rigerous check
of the circumstances required for the client_secret to forgone.
@eculver
Copy link
Contributor

eculver commented Oct 22, 2013

I think this is a worthwhile addition. I'm going to see if I can reproduce the issue @ankitml ran into and review. Hopefully we can get this merged soon. Thanks @adamcharnock.

@adamcharnock
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @eculver. Sorry I never got the change to look into @ankitml's issue.

eculver added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2013
@eculver
Copy link
Contributor

eculver commented Oct 25, 2013

I couldn't reproduce @ankitml's issue and given that the mention was of "kwagrs" instead of "kwargs" and because that string is nowhere in the source, I think it's probably safe to say that there was something else weird going on there. @ankitml, Please correct me if I'm wrong though or if you are still having issues.

@eculver
Copy link
Contributor

eculver commented Oct 25, 2013

I cleaned things up (PEP8) and flattened the tree, but things applied cleanly and this is officially in master now. Thanks again @adamcharnock!

@emperorcezar
Copy link

Awesome. Would love to see go into PyPI soon!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants