chore: Add JWT Algorithm Choices ✨

[yezz123]

Relate to this #122 discussion, i choose to give the user the option to choose the Algorithm, also the RS256 still the default one 🚀

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #143 (07c6dd0) into main (e6ea4cd) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 07c6dd0 differs from pull request most recent head 5d4020c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5d4020c to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #143      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.03%   72.01%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        1241     1240       -1     
==========================================
- Hits          894      893       -1     
  Misses        347      347              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
authx/core/jwt.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
authx/main.py	37.66% <ø> (ø)
authx/routers/social.py	89.13% <ø> (ø)
authx/core/config.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e6ea4cd...5d4020c. Read the comment docs.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 27 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +11 -16
Percentile : 10.8%

Total files changed: 5

Change summary by file extension:
.coveragerc : +4 -0
.py : +7 -16

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 0.08%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	1.94 ⭐	1.95 ⭐	0.01 👎
Method Length	43.87 ⭐	44.19 ⭐	0.32 👎
Working memory	8.54 🙂	8.54 🙂	0.00
Quality	73.40% 🙂	73.32% 🙂	-0.08% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	515	507	-8

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
authx/main.py	77.88% ⭐	77.88% ⭐	0.00%
authx/core/config.py	69.64% 🙂	68.61% 🙂	-1.03% 👎
authx/core/jwt.py	83.14% ⭐	83.14% ⭐	0.00%
authx/routers/social.py	62.62% 🙂	62.62% 🙂	0.00%

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
authx/routers/social.py	get_router	6 ⭐	230 ⛔	10 😞	50.45% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
authx/main.py	Authentication.__init__	0 ⭐	129 😞	21 ⛔	52.43% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
authx/routers/social.py	get_router.callback	2 ⭐	137 😞	9 🙂	64.41% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
authx/core/jwt.py	JWTBackend._create_token	2 ⭐	57 ⭐	10 😞	73.38% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!