Skip to content

fixed TokenEndpoint errors #84

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

2 participants

@arleincho

. Changed testcase directory name "unittest by unittestcase" for conflict with the unittest package.
. In tests are added one for TokenEndpointTest
. It removes the reference to "self" in method of TokenEndpoint create_token_response to recover query_params
. It changes the TokenEndpoint validation for "grant_type" as it was inverted the comparison between "body_params and query_params"
. TokenEndpoint The body_params in {} is allowed if there is no value nungun

arleincho added some commits Dec 12, 2012
@arleincho arleincho . Se cambio el nombre del directorio de testcase "unittest por unitte…
…stcase" por conflicto con el paquete unittest.
e2f95e1
@arleincho arleincho . Se cambio el nombre del directorio de testcase "unittest por unitte…
…stcase" por conflicto con el paquete unittest.

. En las pruebas se adiciona una para TokenEndpointTest
. Se quita la referencia de "self"  en el metodo create_token_response de TokenEndpoint para recuperar el query_params
. Se cambia la validacion el TokenEndpoint para obtener "grant_type" ya que estaba invertida la comparacion entre "body_params y query_params"
.El body_params en TokenEndpoint se deja  en {} si no se tiene nungun valor
0debea7
@arleincho arleincho . Se cambio el nombre del directorio de testcase "unittest por unitte…
…stcase" por conflicto con el paquete unittest.

. En las pruebas se adiciona una para TokenEndpointTest
. Se quita la referencia de "self"  en el metodo create_token_response de TokenEndpoint para recuperar el query_params
. Se cambia la validacion el TokenEndpoint para obtener "grant_type" ya que estaba invertida la comparacion entre "body_params y query_params"
.El body_params en TokenEndpoint se deja  en {} si no se tiene nungun valor
20f3522
@ib-lundgren
Collaborator

Hey and thanks for the PR!

I've just pushed some changes to provider that I had written a while back but until now lacked a few updates to be pushed. I think they might address some of the points you mentioned but I'll have a detailed look this week, hopefully we have not duplicated effort =)

I'm thrilled that you are digging into the provider bit and would love to cooperate on it, I'll try and enumerate the next steps that I think needs to be done at some point this week. I'll ping you when I do...

Regarding the conflict with the unittest package that is by design as it is a convenient way to address inconsistencies across versions of Python.

@ib-lundgren
Collaborator

Thanks again for the PR, it pushed OAuth 2 provider one step closer to reality. I've manually fixed a few of the problems outlined here.

@ib-lundgren ib-lundgren closed this Feb 3, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.