Skip to content
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

[Configuration] Make *_key_path config options not mandatory #196

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 9, 2016

Conversation

chalasr
Copy link
Collaborator

@chalasr chalasr commented Jul 9, 2016

Since we want to integrate different bridges of JW* libraries, the *_key_path options should not be mandatory anymore, because some of their libraries (especially https://github.com/spomky-labs/lexik-jose-bridge) doesn't need this to be configured.

@Spomky, you worked on this in #195 (partially), sorry for that, we will profit of this change to perform some checks (key files existence) via config validation. Let me know what do you think.

@chalasr chalasr force-pushed the optional_key_path branch 5 times, most recently from 367ac72 to 6688189 Compare July 9, 2016 13:04
Logic fixes
Make getKeyValidator private and static
Rename getKeyValidator to validateKeyPath
@Spomky
Copy link
Contributor

Spomky commented Jul 9, 2016

Looks good.
Just a question: is it relevant to check again the path in the KeyLoader class? It is already checked if the Configuration class.

@chalasr
Copy link
Collaborator Author

chalasr commented Jul 9, 2016

Thank you for reviewing it.

It is already checked in the Configuration class.

I hesitated to remove this additional check and I understand it doesn't feel relevant, but I thought it is preferable to keep it, in order to prevent the case of this value is overridden by the end user or some other edge cases of this kind. WDYT?

@Spomky
Copy link
Contributor

Spomky commented Jul 9, 2016

OK it makes sense.

@chalasr chalasr merged commit 21f1b5e into lexik:2.0 Jul 9, 2016
@chalasr chalasr deleted the optional_key_path branch July 9, 2016 14:28
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.

2 participants