Skip to content

Fix overzealous check in the Polaris CLI #1237

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 23, 2025
Merged

Fix overzealous check in the Polaris CLI #1237

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3d963b7
fix
eric-maynard Mar 21, 2025
09eba43
adjust
eric-maynard Mar 21, 2025
48a3e74
revert
eric-maynard Mar 21, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion client/python/cli/polaris_cli.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ def _get_client_builder(options):
# Validates
has_access_token = options.access_token is not None
has_client_secret = client_id is not None and client_secret is not None
if has_access_token and has_client_secret:
if has_access_token and (options.client_id or options.client_secret):
Copy link
Contributor

@flyrain flyrain Mar 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not a blocker: i'm OK even both are configured. We could let it takes token first, if not found, then try to find client id and secrets. Only failed when neither is available.

Copy link
Member

@snazy snazy Mar 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think that the tool should magically prefer the access-token even if client-id/secret are explicitly specified. That's clearly an ambiguity.
The logic here is fine.

raise Exception(f'Please provide credentials via either {Argument.to_flag_name(Arguments.CLIENT_ID)} &'
f' {Argument.to_flag_name(Arguments.CLIENT_SECRET)} or'
f' {Argument.to_flag_name(Arguments.ACCESS_TOKEN)}, but not both')
Expand Down