Coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 90.335% when pulling 2ad25f7 on jtroussard:master into 36f24b4 on requests:master.

Coverage decreased (-0.5%) to 90.0% when pulling 62c8e76 on jtroussard:master into 36f24b4 on requests:master.

Is it related to linkedin only ? also, isn't better to not add a duplicate instead of removing once it has been added ?
Cheers

@JonathanHuot I have not attempted to establish authentication with any resource provider besides LinkedIn. I was hoping someone more familiar with this library would be able to provide a little more insight as to how the module determines how/when/where to add the access token string to the request URL. Any ideas/advice as how to go about finding this out?

As for the present code, I was just thinking about that this morning. Your suggestion is more direct. I'll make the changes now. Thanks!

Also, if it is strictely related to Linkedin integration, I think it deserves to be located in https://github.com/requests/requests-oauthlib/blob/master/requests_oauthlib/compliance_fixes/linkedin.py

Is it possible ?

Thanks

@JonathanHuot The access token appending was in front of me this whole time. It looks like the "oauth_access_token" value is being added to the URL as part of the LinkedIn compliance hook routine. If that is the case I would purpose that the compliance hook for loop be moved after the "access_token" value is added to the URL and then have the def _non_compliant_param_name() method handle the field name vernacular. I'll make the necessary changes now.

Any advice on why my commits are failing the file Travic CI check for Black? Is that a formatting thing? If it is I've run both modules through a Black formatting.

@jtroussard Yes, you can call black requests_oauthlib/compliance_fixes/linkedin.py requests_oauthlib/oauth2_session.py to fix this.

This has been moved to #397

This has been moved to #397