Skip to content

spec compliant 'error_description' but keep 'message' for BC #1006

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 29, 2019
Merged

spec compliant 'error_description' but keep 'message' for BC #1006

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 29, 2019

Conversation

marc-mabe
Copy link
Contributor

@marc-mabe marc-mabe commented Mar 29, 2019

see #958

This is only fixing one part of the problem explained in #958.
I think the other problem with missing state parameter should be done separately.

@Sephster
Copy link
Member

Thanks @marc-mabe - although the duplication isn't ideal it is a way forwards without introducing a breaking change in the version 7 branch. Happy to merge this in.

Will look to make a full change to use error_description in version 8.

@Sephster Sephster merged commit a68f800 into thephpleague:master Mar 29, 2019
@driesvints
Copy link
Contributor

This seems to have broken the Passport build but I can see that this isn't a breaking change so we should just fix our build for this: https://travis-ci.org/laravel/passport/builds/519352496

driesvints added a commit to laravel/passport that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2019
OAuth2 Server did an update to their error responses format: thephpleague/oauth2-server#1006
@Sephster
Copy link
Member

Thanks @driesvints - sorry this caused you issues. We made every effort to ensure it didn't break functionality but looks like this did break your test. I will try and remember to check changes like this against Passport in future and be proactive with a fix.

@driesvints
Copy link
Contributor

No worries at all. I don't consider this to be a breaking change. In the end it only broke our test suite because we're doing some a pretty aggressive assertion there. It's probably better if we used a "contains" assertion instead.

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.

3 participants