Conversation
|
r? @weihanglo (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
1cc9205 to
73a8c1b
Compare
weihanglo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I am going to say might sound stupid: Is it possible that a registry accepts empty tokens to login?
For some reason, I know that some websites permit login with empty passwords. I cannot guarantee there isn't a private registry does the same thing at this moment.
I think the empty password makes sense, but the empty token doesn't make much sense. |
3e16476 to
2d3e1ea
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Agree with you that empty token seems like a weird existence. This patch IMO is with a good intent. I just want to make sure no one's compilation is broken with it. |
66e79b0 to
e0702a5
Compare
|
This only affects |
|
Supposedly because the scenario of sending an empty token is rare, and The risk is that someone need to pass an empty token via CLI cannot work anymore. As @arlosi said, people could still add empty tokens through @rfcbot merge |
|
Team member @weihanglo has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
e0702a5 to
ff9cc2e
Compare
Signed-off-by: hi-rustin <rustin.liu@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: hi-rustin <rustin.liu@gmail.com>
ff9cc2e to
ff575b2
Compare
|
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. This will be merged soon. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
9 commits in 3cdf1ab25dc4fe56f890e8c7330d53a23ad905d3..b8f30cb23c4e5f20854a4f683325782b7cff9837 2022-10-07 17:34:03 +0000 to 2022-10-10 19:16:06 +0000 - Add more doc comments for three modules (rust-lang/cargo#11207) - docs: fix (rust-lang/cargo#11208) - Add completions for `cargo remove` (rust-lang/cargo#11204) - Config file loaded via CLI takes priority over env vars (rust-lang/cargo#11077) - Use `#[default]` when possible (rust-lang/cargo#11197) - Implement RFC 3289: source replacement ambiguity (rust-lang/cargo#10907) - Use correct version of cargo in test (rust-lang/cargo#11193) - Check empty input for login (rust-lang/cargo#11145) - Add retry support to sparse registries (rust-lang/cargo#11069)
Update cargo 9 commits in 3cdf1ab25dc4fe56f890e8c7330d53a23ad905d3..b8f30cb23c4e5f20854a4f683325782b7cff9837 2022-10-07 17:34:03 +0000 to 2022-10-10 19:16:06 +0000 - Add more doc comments for three modules (rust-lang/cargo#11207) - docs: fix (rust-lang/cargo#11208) - Add completions for `cargo remove` (rust-lang/cargo#11204) - Config file loaded via CLI takes priority over env vars (rust-lang/cargo#11077) - Use `#[default]` when possible (rust-lang/cargo#11197) - Implement RFC 3289: source replacement ambiguity (rust-lang/cargo#10907) - Use correct version of cargo in test (rust-lang/cargo#11193) - Check empty input for login (rust-lang/cargo#11145) - Add retry support to sparse registries (rust-lang/cargo#11069)
What does this PR try to resolve?
close #11144
Check empty input for login.
How should we test and review this PR?