This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Update the auth providers to be async. #7935
Update the auth providers to be async. #7935
Changes from 2 commits
27aafa1
4e5ec32
865bb8a
acfbfd8
e99f914
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Were you holding off specifying the possibilities here so that you wouldn't need to specify
Deferred
? If so, it's worth noting thatisinstance(a_deferred, Awaitable)
resolves toTrue
, so I think something not too cumbersome likeOptional[Union[str, Tuple]]
should work here.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.
I didn't specify the possibilities because I did the typing before reading the separate documentation and the docstring didn't specify what was returned. 😄 I can double check the return types to the documentation.
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.
Oh wait, I know why I did this. (I should have ☕ before replying to things...)
Although this method is also named
check_auth
, it is NOT the same as above. It gets called twice:synapse/synapse/handlers/auth.py
Lines 426 to 430 in 4e5ec32
synapse/synapse/handlers/auth.py
Lines 510 to 513 in 4e5ec32
While the one from a password provider gets called:
synapse/synapse/handlers/auth.py
Lines 754 to 758 in 4e5ec32
Anyway, the result of
UserInteractiveAuthChecker.check_auth
gets saved into the database and sometimes inspected in other places.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.
Ah, fair enough then! Thanks for the clear explanation :)
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.
You're welcome! I'm now realizing that putting these changes in the same PR was confusing...since they're not really related. 😢 Sorry about that!