Add accessor to sys.auths response#238
Open
saraislet wants to merge 1 commit intohashicorp:masterfrom
Open
Conversation
|
Thank you for your submission! We require that all contributors sign our Contributor License Agreement ("CLA") before we can accept the contribution. Read and sign the agreement Learn more about why HashiCorp requires a CLA and what the CLA includes Sarai Rosenberg seems not to be a GitHub user. Have you signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Recheck it. |
Author
|
😑 I left the company since I signed the agreement, so the email address is no longer mine to use. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi! Returning the accessor with sys.auths would simplify some work we're doing for managing auth methods.
I added tests, with I think the reasonable assumption that the token auth mount is always created and that we don't need to test the value of the accessor since it is not feasibly predictable (I gather that Vault's golang tests also make this assumption).
The existing tests are somewhat bare. Is this sufficient, and reasonably in line with existing tests? Thanks : )