oidc: Use the correct types to compare the status codes in the oidc example

[poljar]

Something went wrong while #3305 was merged. This fixes the issue introduced by the github rebase.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.48%. Comparing base (856dd01) to head (f79aaed).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3363   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.48%   83.48%           
=======================================
  Files         243      243           
  Lines       25052    25052           
=======================================
  Hits        20914    20914           
  Misses       4138     4138           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[zecakeh]

I believe this should not be necessary if #3362 is merged.

[zecakeh]

Actually, we could fully qualify StatusCode in this case with matrix_sdk::reqwest::StatusCode.

[poljar]

I believe this should not be necessary if #3362 is merged.

Hah yeah, though I think it makes sense to fix the bodged merge of #3305 with the smallest possible patch.

[poljar]

Actually, we could fully qualify StatusCode in this case with matrix_sdk::reqwest::StatusCode.

You mean post merge or in this PR?

[zecakeh]

You mean post merge or in this PR?

In this PR, that should work at any time.

Actually the best option would probably be to not depend directly on http, but use axum::http types for interactions with axum types, and matrix::reqwest types for interacting with the SDK's types.

[poljar]

You mean post merge or in this PR?

In this PR, that should work at any time.

Actually the best option would probably be to not depend directly on http, but use axum::http types for interactions with axum types, and matrix::reqwest types for interacting with the SDK's types.

Right: 344c77b