kb
commented
4 years ago Forgot to follow up on this. Here's a forked implementation last year.
From my commit...
To avoid a breaking api change, duplicated the existing Pki::issue method and updated it to take an IssueOptions object. This makes the api more flexible for future api option value additions and stacking many positional arguments into the method signature
If this is a direction y'all would like to go with here, let me know and I'll look to add some tests.
Hi There!
I'm looking to thread through the private_key_format option for the PKI issue API. I see a PR that was not merged that has the functionality I'm looking for, but does appear to introduce a breaking API change.
The most straight forward change would be something like the PR above, but a breaking change would mean a major version revision which y'all may not want. Alternatively with some code duplication a new API could be added to avoid breaking existing APIs. Do you have a preference for the direction here? I also noticed there are other vault options that would be nice to support as well. Maybe a new version of the API could be introduced that takes a configuration object instead of positional arguments?
I'm happy to take on the changes, just wanted to get some direction before starting in on things.
Thanks!