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
Add: password entry verification to prevent password mistype #662
Open
abastola0
wants to merge
3
commits into
jaraco:main
Choose a base branch
from
abastola0:passwordVerification
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
I've started work on tests and run into an issue. The
input_password
method is coded to accept the input from a pipe (if present). This change of expecting two passwords when it's piped in is unacceptable. Probably instead we'll want to hook this logic in atgetpass.getpass
instead of wrappinginput_password
.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.
In #663, I'm working on adding some tests to capture at least the current expectation and hopefully serve as a foundation for testing this more sophisticated behavior. Interestingly, those tests didn't seem to capture the concern I mentioned above, but I expected them to, so I'll need to think about it a bit more before proceeding.
I've also worked on some refactorings in the
feature/password-verification
branch. I'd pushed them to this PR, but decided to leave them in their own branch for now while working out this issue.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.
Sure. Please let me know if you need help with any other issues as well. I'll be more than happy to contribute.
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.
Maybe we should ask to re-enter password only if
sys.stdin.isatty()
?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.
Yeah I think that works. I think it would be a good idea to skip verification for if not typed in explicitly. I can make this change if it's fine with @jaraco. I would imagine the piped password would already be visual to the user in some form so the verification would not make much sense in that case.
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.
Hi @jaraco. Any update on this?
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.
Sorry for the delay. Yes, please proceed with drafting an implementation that avoids the re-prompt for non-interactive cases.