Skip to content
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

Update dependencies #34

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 31, 2018
Merged

Update dependencies #34

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 31, 2018

Conversation

ace-n
Copy link
Contributor

@ace-n ace-n commented Jan 31, 2018

As title.

The primary motive is to to pull in a google-auth-library bugfix for Container Builder, which is integrated in the new release of google-auth-library.

Note: ideally, this would be a patch or minor version bump. If this change involves a major version bump, we'll have to update any dependents in order to fix the Container Builder issues.

@stephenplusplus stephenplusplus merged commit aa3b2cf into stephenplusplus:master Jan 31, 2018
@stephenplusplus
Copy link
Owner

Thanks! Published as 0.9.2

@ofrobots
Copy link
Collaborator

ofrobots commented Jan 31, 2018

It is great that this landed, but there is no CI in this repo, and the changes over in google-auth-library have been quite substantial. It would be good to add a CI, or possibly move the functionality from here to google-auth-library itself. /cc @JustinBeckwith

@stephenplusplus
Copy link
Owner

I ran locally before publishing. I have an issue to open CI here: #32

But, generally agree: if google-auth-library can make auth easier, like this library, then we should blow this one up.

(A discussion on this should probably happen in a different issue, depending on the direction you want to take: "let's move functionality" vs "we need CI")

@ofrobots
Copy link
Collaborator

I think a CI should exist regardless. There is already an issue open for it: #32

@nolanmar511 nolanmar511 mentioned this pull request Jan 31, 2018
stephenplusplus added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2018
@stephenplusplus
Copy link
Owner

@ace-n @ofrobots I had to revert. Would anyone be willing to send another PR, given the changes noted in #35? As I recall, I initially tested against the 1.0.0 pre-release, and things worked fine without changes. It would probably be quicker for someone more familiar with 1.2.0 to take a shot at this.

@ace-n
Copy link
Contributor Author

ace-n commented Feb 1, 2018

That might be something for @ofrobots to look into - as I'm not very familiar with these libraries, and simply massaged them until npm test passed. (Another reason why we should have CI + solid testing, as @ofrobots mentioned above.)

@stephenplusplus
Copy link
Owner

We all want CI, we just need to get around to adding it :)

RE: solid testing, we could definitely use some real integration tests.

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