-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
Support for non-PAT authentication types #14
Comments
Yeah, it's something that would be nice since it would open up a bunch of extra APIs, but isn't something in scope for any of the normal maintainers for now. Feel free to open a PR though! |
Ok, let me see what I can do... I've effectively already done the same for when I was poking around with the python-azure-devops-api. Honestly, simple_ado seems much more approachable than the original, would love to extend this some and make it a bit more supported. |
Hey @dalemyers I put a little work into this one and have this to show for it: https://github.com/microsoft/simple_ado/compare/main...natemcfeters:simple_ado:device_flow. It's a little hacky as I'm just adding the headers by hand, but it does work in limited testing. The azure-devops api for python makes use of msrest so it's more integrated in, but if this works for you I think it should satisfy and fixes it for me. |
Can you open this as PR please? |
Yep, although before I do... I noticed from your PR back to me that you wanted me to mark type of passed in values. In this case, because the auth is handled a bit differently, you'll either get passed a tuple or a dict. I've just currently marked it as None, but based on your feedback on the other issue, I assume you want this marked as well. Should I mark it simply as Object? Is there a way to mark it as either tuple or dict? |
You can use |
I issued the pull request before I saw this on accident. I can make that change if you want to push back. |
Hey @dalemyers please see the updated commit to the pull request. There was a lot of issues you brought up and I believe I've handled them all, or commented back on those I couldn't now. Can you review? |
Would be nice to extend this to use msal for additional authentication types, like device flow.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: