feat: add auth:accesstoken:store command #165
Conversation
Authored via Leif
Authored via Leif
* feat: identify scratch orgs if hub is known during auth * chore: remove codecov * chore: clean up github folder * refactor: don't use prod-like loginUrl to exit * chore: prune unnecessary ts-comment * test: temporarily remove scratch-org-id to verify tests * style: typos * test: improve logging, temporarily use console * chore: back to regular logging * test: stubs for authinfo.hasAuthentications * style: typos * test: try single test * test: return a promise? * test: check authentications from instance * test: stub method used by hasAuthentications * test: run all the tests again * test: try grant using stubbed listAll * test: stub listAll for web:login * test: store uses stub * style: better error messages * style: typo in nut name! * refactor: changes from review comments * refactor: getFields from authinfo in scratch-id * Revert "refactor: getFields from authinfo in scratch-id" This reverts commit c914648. * style: comment for why we pass in the fields object * fix: use decrypted fields, not result of getFields
Authored via Leif
|
Thanks for the contribution! Before we can merge this, we need @SF-CLI-BOT to sign the Salesforce.com Contributor License Agreement. |
Authored via Leif
Authored via Leif
Authored via Leif
messages/messages.json
Outdated
| "invalidInstanceUrl": "Invalid instance URL. Specify a Salesforce instance URL using the format <domainname>.salesforce.com", | ||
| "accessTokenStdin": "Access token of user to use for authentication", | ||
| "noPrompt": "do not prompt for confirmation", | ||
| "overwriteAuthFileYesNo": "An authorization file exists for user \"%s\". Are you sure you want to save the file?\n\nSave the user (y/n)?" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little unclear about these two questions. Are you asking whether the user wants to overwrite a file? If so, maybe ask this as the first question:
"Are you sure you want to overwrite the existing file?"
And I don't know what "Save the user" means.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jshackell-sfdc I like that better. Will change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jshackell-sfdc I am reusing an existing message here. If I change it, it will affect the other commands as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got it. Let's just leave it. Thx
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although, I still think it'll be confusing to the user. But I also don't want to suggest changing a message that applies to other commands without knowing what those commands are. Could you create a new message for just this situation? I don't know how you all deal with these things. I leave it up to you. With the caveat that I'm not thrilled with the message if you leave it as-is :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will add a new message.
| const messages = Messages.loadMessages('@salesforce/plugin-auth', 'accesstoken.store'); | ||
| const commonMessages = Messages.loadMessages('@salesforce/plugin-auth', 'messages'); | ||
|
|
||
| const ACCESS_TOKEN_FORMAT1 = '"<org id>!<accesstoken>"'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIT: is there an ACCESS_TOKEN_FORMAT2? why is there the 1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@WillieRuemmele, access tokens do follow the above format. Copy/paste error ;)
I'll fix that
…e/W-8066452 # Conflicts: # src/common.ts # test/commands/auth/web/login.test.ts
…e/W-8066452 # Conflicts: # yarn.lock
…e/W-8066452 # Conflicts: # package.json # yarn.lock
What does this PR do?
Introduces a new command
auth:accesstoken:storeWhat issues does this PR fix or reference?
@W-8066452@
Command still needs Review Board approval
THIS PR DEPENDS ON sfdx-core PR feat: modify authInfo to return username for access token auth #405