search

henalbrod / Blazor.Auth0

The library for using Auth0 in Blazor applications.
https://github.com/henalbrod/Blazor.Auth0
MIT License
110 stars 29 forks source link

Compatibility Updates #28

Closed jbomhold3 closed 5 years ago

jbomhold3 commented 5 years ago
jbomhold3 commented 5 years ago

This is the only change I made to get IdentityServer to work. options.RequestMode = Blazor.Auth0.Models.Enumerations.RequestModes.Form_Post; Default values default back to original config

henalbrod commented 5 years ago
  1. All checks have failed
  2. Example projects don't work properly with the proposed changes
jbomhold3 commented 5 years ago

Ok going to keep the fork. I'm logging in just fine with the changes. If you have a server to test against that would help. I'm not sure why this is flat out closed vs giving feedback and addressing the issue.

henalbrod commented 5 years ago

Usually, I don't give more feedback than required (this is an exception).

I mean, there's an automatic validation step that lets you know if there's something wrong with the code beforehand.

Also, I expect the contributor to show some respect by committing a working piece of software.

So, the PR is going to be rejected if it is in bad shape, is like this in the vast majority of the OOS out there.

It needs to be in this way because we should be respectful of those involved in a community-oriented project.

We all are sacrificing time to contribute to our communities. Nobody owns our time nor explanations.

You can't come and say it works on your machine while forgetting to include the changes for the example projects.

Even so, I hoped the code to compile and work OK, so I ran a code review, just to find out the example project didn't work.

There was no reason to continue with the code review if the thing didn't even do its job, the full possible feed-back is the one I posted while closing the PR:

Please, don't wait for others to find implementation mistakes for you.

That's a job that YOU have to do before sending PRs especially if you're pulling lots of changes and a brand new functionality like in this case.

jbomhold3 commented 5 years ago

This is the type of attitude that turns people off from committing to projects.

"I mean, there's an automatic validation step that lets you know if there's something wrong with the code beforehand." Even your own code is getting warnings from stylecop.

"Also, I expect the contributor to show some respect by committing a working piece of software." It Was sent to you working. I would bring up respect when you clearly don't have it for people contributing statement I ever read in my life.

"It needs to be in this way because we should be respectful of those involved in a community-oriented project." Again you bring up respect because you assumed something was just sent to you willy nilly and not check. Witch is disrespectful to me. Did you setup the local NuGet feed so your 3 split projects don't end up with references between them for local testing?

"We all are sacrificing time to contribute to our communities. Nobody owns our time nor explanations." It's not an unreasonable expectation when someone got with you prior in an issue. Stating what they would be doing. You giving your desire/would be nice to have that feature. To give a little feedback if you're running into an issue with a pull request.

"You can't come and say it works on your machine while forgetting to include the changes for the example projects." Changes are in the git folder should have been tracked they were not. No clue why. So yea this is an oversite on my end.

"Even so, I hoped the code to compile and work OK, so I ran a code review, just to find out the example project didn't work." Out of everything else stated before this. I would have spent the extra time made the corrections needed and resubmitted. I did thought you had the state of something good here. That could easily be adapted to work beyond the scope it was intended for. Again something you stated would be nice to have. However, after the "I hoped it would work OK" statement demonstrates what you honestly think code being provided.

"There was no reason to continue with the code review if the thing didn't even do its job, the full possible feed-back is the one I posted while closing the PR:" Found the issue with why it didn't work with Auto0 and was fine with identityserver.

"Please, don't wait for others to find implementation mistakes for you.

That's a job that YOU have to do before sending PRs especially if you're pulling lots of changes and a brand new functionality like in this case." We can't all test for everything. If we could github wouldn't have the code review process. Kinda the entire point of the feature. I'm sure everything stated here is going in other ear and out the other. But if anything just remember "respect is a two-way street." If you want it, show it.