Skip to content

Fix: Don't raise an error if expiration_time_millis is nil; fall back to 0 #552

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
sampart wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix: Don't raise an error if expiration_time_millis is nil; fall back to 0 #552

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lib/googleauth/user_authorizer.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ def get_credentials user_id, scope = nil
scope: data["scope"] || @scope,
access_token: data["access_token"],
refresh_token: data["refresh_token"],
expires_at: data.fetch("expiration_time_millis", 0) / 1000
expires_at: (data.fetch("expiration_time_millis") || 0) / 1000

@robertvoinescu-work robertvoinescu-work Oct 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using fetch without a default will raise a KeyError if the key missing, could we instead do:

expires_at:    (data["expiration_time_millis"] || 0) / 1000

Furthermore, could you also add a couple of unit tests covering both the nil and missing key cases in spec/googleauth/user_authorizer_spec.rb? That way we can avoid regressions.

@quartzmo quartzmo Oct 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is what I was concerned about as well.

@amanda-tarafa amanda-tarafa Oct 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh yes, agreed, I didn't "see" that the default was being removed, just saw the coalescing bit.

)
scope ||= @scope
return monitor_credentials user_id, credentials if credentials.includes_scope? scope
Expand Down
Loading