Closed mbarga closed 5 years ago
Merging #64 into master will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #64 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.52% 99.52%
=======================================
Files 35 35
Lines 849 849
=======================================
Hits 845 845
Misses 4 4
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8b42d2c...76f3191. Read the comment docs.
Merging #64 into master will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #64 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.52% 99.52%
=======================================
Files 35 35
Lines 849 849
=======================================
Hits 845 845
Misses 4 4
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8b42d2c...692113b. Read the comment docs.
Purpose:
My team has been playing around with using the labd mock commercetools server in our integration testing. We use the commercetools introspection endpoint and noticed that it wasn't yet implemented in the labd mock server.
In this pull request, I have added a mock
introspect
method on theAuthBackend
class. It accepts aclient_id
andclient_secret
from the authorization headers, and atoken
from the request body. It then checks if this token has previously been generated and stored in the modelself.tokens
list, and returns an appropriate active or inactive response.For context, this endpoint implements Auth 2.0 supported Token Introspection.