-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
refactor: add-fragments-content #983
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Deploying logto-docs with Cloudflare Pages
|
```json | ||
Authorization: Basic ${Buffer.from(${id}:${secret}, 'utf8').toString('base64')} | ||
``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is inaccurate I think.
- First of all, not all "traditional web" are JS based framework, the code example showed here is Node.js
- Even in Node.js, the code sample is incorrect. Should be
Authorization: `Basic ${Buffer.from(`${id}:${secret}`, 'utf8').toString('base64')}`
/** eslint-disable no-irregular-whitespace \*/ | ||
/** eslint-disable no-irregular-whitespace \*/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These are not expected.
```tsx | ||
ssoIdentities: { | ||
issuer: string; | ||
identityId: string; | ||
detail: { | ||
[x: string]: Record<string, unknown>; | ||
}; | ||
}[]; | ||
``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code indent needs to be adjusted.
```tsx | ||
roles: { | ||
id: string; | ||
name: string; | ||
description: string; | ||
scopes: { | ||
id: string; | ||
name: string; | ||
description: string | null; | ||
resourceId: string; | ||
resource: { | ||
tenantId: string; | ||
id: string; | ||
name: string; | ||
indicator: string; | ||
isDefault: boolean; | ||
accessTokenTtl: number; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
[]; | ||
} | ||
[]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm, would prefer using Array<{ key: type; key2: type }>
when defining the types for a complex object, instead of []
```tsx | ||
organizations: { | ||
id: string; | ||
name: string; | ||
description: string | null; | ||
}[ | ||
``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same problems as above
```tsx | ||
organizationRoles: { | ||
organizationId: string; | ||
roleId: string; | ||
roleName: string; | ||
} | ||
[]; | ||
``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are these types copied from API docs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we use tables instead of json?
Summary