Without reading the email in any detail, I'm curious why we have a "redirectTo" and "client_id". Shouldn't it be "redirect_to" or "clientId", you know, for consistency and stuffs?
-peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Kelly" <[email protected]> To: "Shane Tomlinson" <[email protected]>, "Chris Karlof" <[email protected]>, "Nick Chapman" <[email protected]>, "Zachary Carter" <[email protected]>, "Vlad Filippov" <[email protected]>, "Peter deHaan" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:48:12 PM Subject: Re: untangling a Session/FxaClientWrapper/Relier mess - HALP!? On 11/09/2014 6:57 AM, Shane Tomlinson wrote: > [..snip..] > > It feels like a dream. All is right with the world until the unit tests > are run. BOOOM. > > This approach requires *every* *single* View test to be updated to pass > in a manually created FxaClient that contains a reference to a Relier. > Each individual update makes sense, but the number of tests that needed > to be updated made me doubt the approach. > [..snip..] > Personally, for long term maintainability, I prefer approach #1. I think > it will make it easier to add calls to the FxaClient in new modules > without worrying about so many things. I feel like #1 is closer to where > we want to go in the long run, and it allows us to migrate info from > Session to the Reliers in a more direct manner. It just scares me that > the diff is so large. > > I want to see what you guys think, and if you have any ideas. Without looking at the PRs in any detail, I'd rather trade test churn for an improved API any day of the week. But I guess I can safely say that because I don't have to review the huge diff :-) Ryan _______________________________________________ Dev-fxacct mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
