Feature/api clients #389
Feature/api clients #389
Conversation
| @disable_ssl_option | ||
| @use_v2_file_events_option | ||
| @debug_option | ||
| def create_api_client( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I chose to make this a separate create command for a couple reasons
- py42's sdk uses two different auth methods
- the
totpoption isn't applicable with api-client auth - I didn't think an optional password/secret (and in turn prompting the user for authentication on every command) made sense in the case of api clients.
- allowing users to pass in secret and password interchangeably makes it difficult to understand what the users trying to do in the case of the
code42 profile updatecommand
Whether or not this should be a separate command or if we should just add options to the original create command (which is how the ticket was initially authored) is definitely open for discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, a separate command makes sense, given there's enough differences. Making it explicit makes it easier to document and harder for a user to do something wrong unintentionally.
| @username_option() | ||
| @password_option | ||
| @totp_option | ||
| @disable_ssl_option | ||
| @use_v2_file_events_option | ||
| @yes_option(hidden=True) | ||
| @debug_option | ||
| def update( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this method is now too unsightly for mortal eyes I could move the param error checking into a helper function
| @@ -105,24 +120,6 @@ def delete_profile(self, name): | |||
| self._internal[self.DEFAULT_PROFILE] = self.DEFAULT_VALUE | |||
| self._save() | |||
|
|
|||
| def _set_authority_url(self, new_value, profile): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
simplified these one liners
tora-kozic
force-pushed
the
feature/api-clients
branch
from
a6afc15 to
8148859
Compare
tora-kozic
force-pushed
the
feature/api-clients
branch
from
8148859 to
bd06572
Compare
| ] | ||
| for matter in matters: | ||
| try: | ||
| matter["creator_username"] = matter["creator"]["user"]["email"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will fail if the matter was created via an API client, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what the conditions for the field being populated are (but that would make sense). This creator user email field isn't even included on the response documentation and isn't on every matter, but it does exist and is populated on some of them.
Adds API client support
code42 profile create-api-clientcommand--secretand--api-client-idoptions tocode42 profile updatecode42 legal-hold listandcode42 legal-hold show