This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 5, 2019. It is now read-only.
Paring down unused keys in JSON credentials files. #156
Conversation
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
Previously the User and Service Account credentials files had the some contents even though they have different dictionary keys used for the credentials properties.
|
LGTM if all the tests pass. This is much closer to how the files appear in real scenarios. |
|
Tests pass; merging based on @anthmgoogle's approval. |
nathanielmanistaatgoogle
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 30, 2015
Paring down unused keys in JSON credentials files.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Previously the User and Service Account credentials files had the some contents even though they have different dictionary keys used for the credentials properties.
/cc @nathanielmanistaatgoogle
Spinning off from previous PR based from #153 (comment)