Norberto Lopes
Norberto Lopes
Would be indeed. I wonder if we could get two entry points for both kinds of behaviour.
There's no heavy handed reason honestly. I start with the easiest for the user and complicate when needed. In this case it ends up being a breaking change, hence me...
Absolutely. Thank you so much for the work you're putting in, much appreciated.
This isn't forgotten, it's just that I'm on mobile (yearly vacation time). I should be able to give it a look this weekend.
Ha! Apologies, this time around I did indeed forget it. Let me take a look this week.
This is a good point. I'm yet to get some solid blocked time to go through this properly myself so bear with me please.
@jcgruenhage Alright, I've thought about this now and I think this may be a better idea. If anyone can put a PR for this, I'll gladly take a look.
A PR would be 👌
I might be able to help. Instead of doing `Validation::new(Algorithm::RS256)` do `Validation::new(header.alg)` where header is: ``` let header = jwt::decode_header(jwt); ``` In total it should be something like: ``` #...
I'd consider this a breaking change - I've gone against semantic versioning before when I'm under 1.0. I might do it for this one as well. Thanks for sending -...