Skip to content

Introduce CORE Api Authentication#40

Open
imRohan wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
rl-core-auth
Open

Introduce CORE Api Authentication#40
imRohan wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
rl-core-auth

Conversation

@imRohan

@imRohan imRohan commented Jun 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

A new version of the API (CORE) is now available and will be used in the near future for new resources. This new API utilizes a basic authentication scheme. This PR lays the groundwork for future PR's to be able to interact with the CORE api, and adds the plumbing necessary to successfully configure the gem, and authenticate with CORE.

This change addresses the need by:

  • Introducing a v2 authenticator
  • Introducing a v2 api
  • Introducing a CoreObject resource which can be used by all core (v2) objects

A new version of the API (CORE) is now available and will be used in the
near future for new resources. This new API utilizes a basic
authentication scheme. This PR lays the groundwork for future PR's to be
able to interact with the CORE api, and adds the plumbing necessary to
successfully configure the gem, and authenticate with CORE.

This change addresses the need by:
* Introducing a v2 authenticator
* Introducing a v2 api
* Introducing a CoreObject resource which can be used by all core (v2)
  objects
@imRohan imRohan self-assigned this Jun 23, 2026
@authentication = authentication
end

def save!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why save? i don't think anything is actually being committed anywhere is it? Maybe authenticate! is clearer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This class has to have the same public interface as the authenticator for v1 which also uses #save! (link). This decision was made initially to make the public api of the classes align with active record. Renaming would impact existing v1 classes, which if necessary should probably be done separately if we're now reconsidering naming.

@imRohan imRohan requested review from chriswoodford and jmazur June 23, 2026 18:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants