| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In general:
* If the client can only assume the response is immediately valid (mostly, login creation, where the client cannot monitor the event stream), then 200 Okay, with data describing the server's view of the request.
* If the client can monitor for completion by watching the event stream, then 202 Accepted, with data describing the server's view of the request.
This comes on the heels of a comment I made on Discord:
> hrm
>
> creating a login: 204 No Content, no body
> sending a message: 202 Accepted, no body
> creating a channel: 200 Okay, has a body
>
> past me, what were you on
There wasn't any principled reason for this inconsistency; it happened as the endpoints were written at different times and with different states of mind.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is primarily renames and repackagings.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The following values are considered confidential, and should never be logged, even by accident:
* `Password`, which is a durable bearer token for a specific Login;
* `IdentitySecret`, which is an ephemeral but potentially long-lived bearer token for a specific Login; or
* `IdentityToken`, which may hold cookies containing an `IdentitySecret`.
These values are now wrapped in types whose `Debug` impls output opaque values, so that they can be included in structs that `#[derive(Debug)]` without requiring any additional care. The wrappers also avoid implementing `Display`, to prevent inadvertent `to_string()`s.
We don't bother obfuscating `IdentitySecret`s in memory or in the `.hi` database. There's no point: we'd also need to store the information needed to de-obfuscate them, and they can be freely invalidated and replaced by blanking that table and asking everyone to log in again. Passwords _are_ obfuscated for storage, as they're intended to be durable.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This'll catch style issues, mostly.
|
| |
|
