Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Scope handling #90
When user specifies no scope, does it make more sense to select only
Against: Once gargle starts to ask "does this token have the scope I need?" as opposed to "does this token have this exact set of scopes?", it is nice to have them all listed.
What if someone gets a token by explicitly asking for
It looks like there are now more scopes than the ones currently included in the package (https://developers.google.com/gmail/api/auth/scopes).
Also it seems that 'full' scope is not simply equivalent to all the other scopes.
Which implies to me that those actions are not included in other scopes and can only be obtained by using 'full'.
I think the current behavior is to default to readonly scope if the user does not specify one, am I correct in that?
Current default is to get all 4 scopes:
> get_token() <Token (via gargle)> <oauth_endpoint> google <oauth_app> tidyverse <email> jenny.f.bryan@... <scopes> ...gmail.readonly, ...gmail.modify, ...gmail.compose, ...mail.google.com, email <credentials> access_token, expires_in, id_token, refresh_token, token_type (expires in 60 mins)
I don't really remember my original intention, but I think this is actually a bug and my intention was to make read_only alone the default. But because it uses
I think we should probably change the default to simply