Allow decode options to specify required claims #430
Conversation
|
Hello, @andyjdavis! This is your first Pull Request that will be reviewed by SourceLevel, an automatic Code Review service. It will leave comments on this diff with potential issues and style violations found in the code as you push new commits. You can also see all the issues found on this Pull Request on its review page. Please check our documentation for more information. |
![sourcelevel-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/597?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ class InvalidAudError < DecodeError; end | |||
| class InvalidSubError < DecodeError; end | |||
| class InvalidJtiError < DecodeError; end | |||
| class InvalidPayload < DecodeError; end | |||
| class MissingRequiredClaim < DecodeError; end | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
JWT::MissingRequiredClaim has no descriptive comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
None of these error classes have a descriptive comment so I'm not sure I should add one.
andyjdavis
force-pushed
the
224_required_claims
branch
from
7d422e9 to
498d632
Compare
|
SourceLevel has finished reviewing this Pull Request and has found:
|
|
Looks good. Would it make sense to have one "integration" test for this, testing the public |
|
Just letting you know that I have been on a short holiday but I'm back now. I will get back to this in the next 2-3 days :) |
andyjdavis
force-pushed
the
224_required_claims
branch
from
498d632 to
4cb4751
Compare
|
@anakinj Ive pushed a commit with an integration test. Let me know if anything needs more work. |
|
Looks great. A few minor adjustments to get RuboCop happy and we are ready to merge. https://github.com/jwt/ruby-jwt/pull/430/checks?check_run_id=3077229521 |
|
@anakinj I have fixed those rubocop warnings. |
Hi, this is a potential solution for #244
When decoding, the caller can optionally supply an array of claims that must be present for the jwt to be valid. For example requiring the 'exp' claim to both be present and valid.
I wasnt sure whether to put the check within Verify.verify_claims and ultimately added Verify.verify_required_claims alongside. Let me know if you want any changes to how this is structured.