Skip to content
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

Jump to bottom

Don't use a bool argument over the FFI in fxa_migrate_from_session_token #2592

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2020
Merged

Don't use a bool argument over the FFI in fxa_migrate_from_session_token #2592

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2020

Conversation

rfk
Copy link
Contributor

@rfk rfk commented Feb 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

This is #2591 cherry-picked against latest migration release.

Pull Request checklist

  • Quality: This PR builds and tests run cleanly
    • automation/all_tests.sh runs to completion and produces no failures
    • Note: For changes that need extra cross-platform testing, consider adding [ci full] to the PR title.
  • Tests: This PR includes thorough tests or an explanation of why it does not
  • Changelog: This PR includes a changelog entry in CHANGES_UNRELEASED.md or an explanation of why it does not need one
    • Any breaking changes to Swift or Kotlin binding APIs are noted explicitly
  • Dependencies: This PR follows our dependency management guidelines
    • Any new dependencies are accompanied by a summary of the due dilligence applied in selecting them.

rfk
rfk commented Feb 5, 2020
View reviewed changes
components/fxa-client/ios/FxAClient/RustFxAFFI.h
const char *_Nonnull kXCS,
uint8_t copySessionToken,
FxAError *_Nonnull out);

Copy link
Contributor Author

@rfk rfk Feb 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have some code on master that exposes this (and a bunch of additional FxA methods) to Swift, I've grabbed this one into the point-release so that we don't forget it when merging back to master.

@rfk rfk requested a review from thomcc February 5, 2020 21:42
@rfk rfk mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2020
Closed
4 tasks
thomcc
thomcc approved these changes Feb 5, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@thomcc thomcc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wrote this so reviewing it is weird, but it already had gotten an R+ so...

@rfk
Copy link
Contributor Author

rfk commented Feb 5, 2020

I wrote this so reviewing it is weird, but it already had gotten an R+ so...

Yep, thanks branch protection :-)

@rfk rfk merged commit 722a07c into release-0.50.x Feb 5, 2020
@rfk rfk deleted the 0.50.1 branch May 28, 2020 23:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@thomcc thomcc thomcc approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@rfk @thomcc