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

Clarify ordering of auth schemes in ServiceIndex #1915

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 14, 2023

Conversation

milesziemer
Copy link
Contributor

Updates the docs for getEffectiveAuthSchemes to clarify that the returned auth schemes will be in alphabetical order by shape id if there is no auth trait present. This was always the case due to the usage of TreeMap, but the documentation didn't explicitly state it.

Tests were also updated to ensure this ordering.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@milesziemer milesziemer requested a review from a team as a code owner August 10, 2023 18:09
assertThat(auth, hasKey(HttpBearerAuthTrait.ID));
List<ShapeId> ids = new ArrayList<>(auth.keySet());
assertThat(ids, hasSize(3));
assertThat(ids.get(0), equalTo(HttpBasicAuthTrait.ID));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

getsAuthSchemesOfServiceWithAuthTrait below also should assert the order instead of just hasKey.

Updates the docs for getEffectiveAuthSchemes to clarify that the
returned auth schemes will be in alphabetical order by shape id
if there is no `auth` trait present. This was always the case due
to the usage of TreeMap, but the documentation didn't explicitly
state it.

Tests were also updated to ensure this ordering.
@milesziemer milesziemer merged commit 8635932 into smithy-lang:main Aug 14, 2023
milesziemer added a commit to milesziemer/smithy that referenced this pull request Aug 16, 2023
Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned
order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in smithy-lang#1915 to assert this
ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also
made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test.
The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR
is to fix that.
milesziemer added a commit to milesziemer/smithy that referenced this pull request Aug 16, 2023
Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned
order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in smithy-lang#1915 to assert this
ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also
made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test.
The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR
is to fix that.
milesziemer added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 18, 2023
Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned
order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in #1915 to assert this
ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also
made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test.
The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR
is to fix that.
alextwoods pushed a commit to alextwoods/smithy that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2023
Updates the docs for getEffectiveAuthSchemes to clarify that the
returned auth schemes will be in alphabetical order by shape id
if there is no `auth` trait present. This was always the case due
to the usage of TreeMap, but the documentation didn't explicitly
state it.

Tests were also updated to ensure this ordering.
alextwoods pushed a commit to alextwoods/smithy that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2023
Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned
order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in smithy-lang#1915 to assert this
ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also
made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test.
The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR
is to fix that.
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