Cleanup things before the next release (0.10) #30
Conversation
Aside from a bunch of cleanups, this also makes the main configurations non-exhaustive, in order to be prepared for future extensions. BREAKING-CHANGE: In addition to the other configuration/option struct, this also makes the main configuration non-exhaustive. So it is no longer possible to directly create a new struct, but use the "new" function instead and modify the struct using the `with_*` functions.
BREAKING-CHANGE: All hooks are part of the `crate::hooks` module now. This legacy re-export was removed.
|
|
||
| ```toml | ||
| yew-oauth2 = { version = "0.9", features = ["router"] } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just wondering, since the api is changing already anyway - coming at this as a yew beginner, this was a slightly confusing part, because I didn't realize that yew-nested-router and yew-router are mutually incompatible. Wouldn't naming this feature nested-router be more descriptive?
| @@ -114,6 +125,10 @@ pub struct LogoutOptions { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| impl LogoutOptions { | |||
| pub fn new() -> Self { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ooof, didn't notice this in previous PR, that would complicate things a lot :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't, what I mean is that I missed absence of this constructor in the PR introducing non_exhaustive.
But right, it was still possible to create it with Default trait.
| pub const STORAGE_KEY_CSRF_TOKEN: &str = "ctron/oauth2/csrfToken"; | ||
| pub const STORAGE_KEY_LOGIN_STATE: &str = "ctron/oauth2/loginState"; | ||
| pub const STORAGE_KEY_REDIRECT_URL: &str = "ctron/oauth2/redirectUrl"; | ||
| pub const STORAGE_KEY_POST_LOGIN_URL: &str = "ctron/oauth2/postLoginUrl"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we are going to make this specific const private, it might be a good idea to expose some method to get it, if user wants to for example provide a "redirect back" link from landing page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to hide that internal state as far away as possible … would it work better to have some struct/fn which returns the actual data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's what I mean by "expose some method to get it", yep :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I exposed this as the LoginState.
BREAKING-CHANGE: The feature named "router" got renamed to "nested-router"
No description provided.