-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
[ACL-231] Support for generate idempotency keys when not provided #233
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
tl-Roberto-Mancinelli
commented
Nov 27, 2024
•
edited
Loading
edited
- Changed idempotency key to nullable type and automatically generate a uuid in case of null
- Remove netcore 3.1 from test as it's causing warnings
- Switched to mock-payments-gb-redirect for VRP commercial tests
- Minor improvements in ci
fba33ef
to
af1d1dc
Compare
c684d91
to
3214d0c
Compare
3214d0c
to
0d047e7
Compare
with: | ||
fetch-depth: 0 | ||
filter: tree:0 |
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.
What's the benefit of this?
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.
it's required for minver
@@ -65,7 +71,10 @@ public async Task<ApiResponse<CreateMandateResponse>> CreateMandate(CreateMandat | |||
|
|||
//TODO: is it correct that this method expects a mandate type? | |||
/// <inheritdoc /> | |||
public async Task<ApiResponse<MandateDetailUnion>> GetMandate(string mandateId, MandateType mandateType, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default) | |||
public async Task<ApiResponse<MandateDetailUnion>> GetMandate( |
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.
One day it would be nice standardising the handling for scopes across libs. I think we should also start from the API and re-assess if using scopes to segregate type of mandates is correct... It does not seem to be very inline with Oauth?
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.
That's something we considered, it will be nice to remove those scopes
public static string COMMERCIAL_PROVIDER_ID = "ob-natwest-vrp-sandbox"; // Provider to satisfy commercial mandates creation. | ||
public static AccountIdentifier.SortCodeAccountNumber accountIdentifier = new("140662", "10003957"); | ||
private const string ReturnUri = "http://localhost:3000/callback"; | ||
private const string ProviderId = "ob-uki-mock-bank-sbox"; // Beta provider in closed access, requires a whitelisted ClientId. |
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.
Still required?
public static AccountIdentifier.SortCodeAccountNumber accountIdentifier = new("140662", "10003957"); | ||
private const string ReturnUri = "http://localhost:3000/callback"; | ||
private const string ProviderId = "ob-uki-mock-bank-sbox"; // Beta provider in closed access, requires a whitelisted ClientId. | ||
private const string CommercialProviderId = "mock-payments-gb-redirect"; // Provider to satisfy commercial mandates creation. |
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.
Is it just for commercial? could we use this for both sweeping and commercial?
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.
no, it doesn't work with the current implementation of the tests.
A refactor of mandate tests is needed to use that mock