fix: Revise secret flags for Salesforce (#587) #55
Conversation
| @@ -18,10 +18,10 @@ | |||
| }, | |||
| "componentProperties": { | |||
| "loginUrl": { "kind": "property", "displayName": "Login Url", "group": "security", "label": "common,security", "required": true, "type": "string", "javaType": "java.lang.String", "deprecated": false, "secret": false, "defaultValue": "https://login.salesforce.com", "description": "URL of the Salesforce instance by default set to https://login.salesforce.com" }, | |||
| "clientId": { "kind": "property", "displayName": "Client Id", "group": "security", "label": "common,security", "required": true, "type": "string", "javaType": "java.lang.String", "deprecated": false, "secret": true, "description": "OAuth Consumer Key of the connected app configured in the Salesforce instance setup. Typically a connected app needs to be configured but one can be provided by installing a package." }, | |||
| "clientId": { "kind": "property", "displayName": "Client Id", "group": "security", "label": "common,security", "required": true, "type": "string", "javaType": "java.lang.String", "deprecated": false, "secret": false, "description": "OAuth Consumer Key of the connected app configured in the Salesforce instance setup. Typically a connected app needs to be configured but one can be provided by installing a package." }, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you update commit message to indicate the clientId field is also now not secret (which I agree with btw)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to:
fix: Revise secret flags for Salesforce (#587)
This marks: clientId and userName as non-secret component properties.
This marks: clientId and userName as non-secret component properties.
zregvart
changed the title
|
Pull request approved by @jimmidyson - applying approved label |
|
@jimmidyson @zregvart It seems that editing the jsons alone is not good enough as although there are checked in, they are autogenerated from somewhere. I.e. when I do a 'mvn install' this changes gets overwritten again. Any idea where this comes from ? (before I start digging ...) |
|
@rhuss it could be the combination of annotation processor ( |
|
Agreed. Should we make the generation of the json somewhat optional in order to decrease the chances that the old version is checked in by accident ?. E.g. we could introduc a profile 'schema-regen' and configure the plugin only for this profile. |
This marks: clientId and userName as non-secret component properties.