Open asmsuechan opened 2 weeks ago
Thanks for the PR!
This section of the codebase is owned by @saschanaz - if they write a comment saying "LGTM" then it will be merged.
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree
This can be a problem when other types of credentials come, maybe there should be additional overload based on the value of credential
?
@saschanaz Thank you for your comment! Yes, what you say is true. Promise<PublicKeyCredential | FederatedCredential | PasswordCredential | null>
is the correct interface. However, FederatedCredential
and PasswordCredential
are not yet implemented. So I added only PublicKeyCredential
because it's better than the current implementation Promise<Credential | null>
.
If it's unacceptable, I'll add the other interfaces above in this PR. I would love to know the manners of this repo first.
Oops, FederatedCredential and PasswordCredential are supported only by Chrome.
check whether it's supported by two or more browser engines
According to the sentence, they don't meet the qualification.
So, Promise<Credential | PublicKeyCredential | null>
is better for now?
Hi developers,
The return value for CredentialsContainer.create is one of
FederatedCredential
,PasswordCredential
, andPublicKeyCredential
according to https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/CredentialsContainer/create#return_valueThe return types are subclass of Credential. So I changed using
PublicKeyCredential
fromCredential
. Note thatFederatedCredential
andPasswordCredential
haven't been implemented yet, therefore, I didn't use them. I'll also try to create them after I learn the manners of this repo.Thank you for reading my PR.