feat(): support for asynchronous version of secretOrKeyProvider
#1486
Conversation
This file contains 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
This was referenced Nov 8, 2023
|
@kamilmysliwiec how likely are we to see progress on this given the original issue #235 been closed and the last submitted PR sat dormant for over 2.5 years? I ask as this missing capability is a problematic us and anyone needing JWKS support like Auth0 users. |
|
lgtm |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: #235
What is the new behavior?
Allow ability to provide an asynchronous version of
secretOrKeyProvider. However, when using asynchronous version ofsecretOrKeyProvider, synchronous versions of.signand.verifywill log a warning message and throw an exception before calling.signor.verify.Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
I'm not sure if this PR contains breaking changes, because synchronous versions of
.signand.verifycan throw exceptions as well.This PR is an updated version of #469 with conflicts resolved and typos fixed.