I my humble opinion modifying the vapid_claims dict is very unintuitive because it can lead to errors such as the one I described in #130. I therefore recommend copying the dict as implemented in this PR to avoid such errors.
It's also worth considering to revert the fix from #113 within this PR since it attempted to solve a similar problem that is also covered by this change, although that would change the behavior for exps in the past a bit. The corresponding test would need to be changed.
If the modifying of the passed dict is intentional, I'd recommend making that very clear in the documentation.
Please let me know about any desired changes, I'm unfamiliar with e.g. python tests.
I my humble opinion modifying the
vapid_claimsdict is very unintuitive because it can lead to errors such as the one I described in #130. I therefore recommend copying the dict as implemented in this PR to avoid such errors.It's also worth considering to revert the fix from #113 within this PR since it attempted to solve a similar problem that is also covered by this change, although that would change the behavior for
exps in the past a bit. The corresponding test would need to be changed.If the modifying of the passed dict is intentional, I'd recommend making that very clear in the documentation.
Please let me know about any desired changes, I'm unfamiliar with e.g. python tests.