Consistent encoding for shared secret #127
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This SDK disagrees with the shared secret that the other SDKs produce, because it encodes the master key to a
latin1
string internally, and then concatenated with autf8
string (the channel name) before being passed to thesha256
method which (probably) interprets strings asutf8
. This is pretty insane, but it still "works" as long as you don't try to use two server libraries simultaneously, because then they will disagree about what the key should be.Regardless, we should avoid all this encoding nonsense internally by just keeping everything in buffers once we've decoded from base64. After this change pusher-http-node agrees with the ruby and go SDKs at least. I'm going to check the others next.
edit:
binary
is a horribly confusing alias forlatin1
. yuck.