We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
I tried to bring this TimeFunc on the ParserOptions, then pass it in the Claims But I just saw a recent retraction of something very similar.
TimeFunc
ParserOptions
Claims
#184
So, I would believe you will not accept a PR like mine until v5, but having the TimeFunc() local makes more sense for testing
TimeFunc()
jsgoupil@a6c0c03
I hope you can consider this bug for a future release.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for opening this issue and linking to the PR.
I suggest keeping it open (maybe adding a /v5 label) so we make sure to consider it if/when thinking through what a future release would look like.
Sorry, something went wrong.
I tried to bring this TimeFunc on the ParserOptions, then pass it in the Claims But I just saw a recent retraction of something very similar. #184 So, I would believe you will not accept a PR like mine until v5, but having the TimeFunc() local makes more sense for testing jsgoupil@a6c0c03 I hope you can consider this bug for a future release.
Did you by any chance have a look at the v5 branch. I added a feature that hopefully solves your issue here: https://github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/pull/234/files#diff-72f644d282bce7e136d0f762de1b9d5f3e447bfa88e5e0c4974ac2479107ddc9R40-R47
v5
Fixed by #234
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
I tried to bring this
TimeFunc
on theParserOptions
, then pass it in theClaims
But I just saw a recent retraction of something very similar.
#184
So, I would believe you will not accept a PR like mine until v5, but having the
TimeFunc()
local makes more sense for testingjsgoupil@a6c0c03
I hope you can consider this bug for a future release.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: