Skip to content

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cbiesinger
Copy link
Collaborator

@cbiesinger cbiesinger commented Apr 15, 2025

Copy link
Collaborator

@npm1 npm1 left a 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

@cbiesinger
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I couldn't find the issue, do you happen to have it?

@npm1
Copy link
Collaborator

npm1 commented Apr 15, 2025

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spec/index.bs Outdated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.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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 ...

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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.

Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants