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

[ACL-231] Support for generate idempotency keys when not provided #233

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tl-Roberto-Mancinelli
Copy link
Collaborator

@tl-Roberto-Mancinelli tl-Roberto-Mancinelli commented Nov 27, 2024

  • 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

@tl-Roberto-Mancinelli tl-Roberto-Mancinelli changed the title Acl 231 [ACL-231] Support for generate idempotency keys when not provided Nov 27, 2024
@tl-Roberto-Mancinelli tl-Roberto-Mancinelli changed the base branch from main to ACL-222 November 27, 2024 14:12
Base automatically changed from ACL-222 to main December 2, 2024 09:12
@tl-Roberto-Mancinelli tl-Roberto-Mancinelli force-pushed the ACL-231 branch 2 times, most recently from c684d91 to 3214d0c Compare December 2, 2024 15:31
@tl-Roberto-Mancinelli tl-Roberto-Mancinelli marked this pull request as ready for review December 2, 2024 16:51
@tl-Roberto-Mancinelli tl-Roberto-Mancinelli requested review from a team as code owners December 2, 2024 16:51
Comment on lines +20 to +22
with:
fetch-depth: 0
filter: tree:0
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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(
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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.
Copy link
Contributor

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.
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants