-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
State that resolve() does nothing outside of continue_on #717
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Link the issue associated with this PR in the description?
LGTM. Even though I think this could be specified a bit more formally, I think it's clear enough. Let's see what Ben thinks
I couldn't find the issue, do you happen to have it? |
Oh I think this was something we noticed over chat, there appears to be no issue |
spec/index.bs
Outdated
@@ -1733,6 +1733,10 @@ their phone number. To allow for such flows, the [=IDP=] must call | |||
|
|||
See the [=show an IDP login dialog=] algorithm for more details. | |||
|
|||
{{IdentityProvider/resolve}} is used while a [=show a continuation | |||
dialog|continuation dialog=] is shown to return a specific token to the [=RP=] | |||
as described below. If called at any other time, it does nothing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as described below. If called at any other time, it does nothing. | |
as described below. If called at any other time, it throws an Error. |
Shouldn't we be throwing an error perhaps?
Not sure, and also, not implemented, but just wanted to raise whether "does nothing" is the right thing ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point. Changed it to reject with an InvalidStateError.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes rejecting is better. Is this what the implementation does?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After checking the implementation, it does reject with an error, but it uses NotAllowedError. I changed this PR to use that error as well.
(This makes Ted's suggestion moot)
Preview | Diff