-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Static site #2
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Static site #2
Conversation
schuyler1d
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I think I get the general idea here, now that I've seen both PRs.
Sorry comments are distributed between both -- but maybe consider the comments as the questions of someone coming to the codebase for the first time, unfamiliar with the tech (a likely scenario for us).
So I think my toplines (for both PRs) are:
-
document the security model -- (it is clearer with the static page content, but please put it in the readme)
-
switch to HMAC for the key construction/validation
-
Dont' call it 'Static Site' -- that caused a lot of confusion for me as to what I was trying to evaluate.
-
Fail harder/faster on missing campaign/source if they are expected to be required.
-
Maybe say a little about
pywell-- and its usecases -- and a quick link or documentation on how to run a dev environment locally (to see the web part work). -
How do we construct the keys -- is that in this repo as well? If so, then document that in the readme -- what command do I run to create a key?
|
Also, ideally, add a small test that just creates and validates a valid key, and then confirms that an invalid one does indeed fail. |
This is on top of #1, just adding HTML and JS files.