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

Fix LevelDB yaml unmarshall error and update documentation #389

Conversation

endoze
Copy link
Contributor

@endoze endoze commented Mar 22, 2024

In order to ensure the project correctly validates authentication methods in the config file that can use a token db, this commit modifies the logic to ensure we check if all of the token methods are nil before outputting an error. Previously, if the local filesystem token db method was not nil and the other two (redis and google cloud storage) were nil, we would return an error and the config would be considered invalid.

Additionally, this commit documents the correct LevelDB settings for the config file. Prior to the addition of Bcrypt hashing cost, just using token_db was acceptable in the configuration along with a string representing the path. Given the swap to a struct instead of a string, we need to update documentation concerning this.

endoze and others added 2 commits March 22, 2024 01:08
In order to ensure the project correctly validates authentication
methods in the config file that can use a token db, this commit modifies
the logic to ensure we check if all of the token methods are nil before
outputting an error. Previously, if the local filesystem token db method
was not nil and the other two (redis and google cloud storage) were nil,
we would return an error and the config would be considered invalid.

Additionally, this commit documents the correct LevelDB settings for the
config file. Prior to the addition of Bcrypt hashing cost, just using
`token_db` was acceptable in the configuration along with a string
representing the path. Given the swap to a struct instead of a string,
we need to update documentation concerning this.
@techknowlogick techknowlogick merged commit 82da6e8 into cesanta:main Jun 6, 2024
8 checks passed
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