> @@ -101,10 +101,20 @@ protected void bindErrorHandlers() {
> return
> MemoizedRetryOnTimeOutButNotOnAuthorizationExceptionSupplier.create(authException,
> compose(new Function<Credentials, String>() {
> public String apply(Credentials in) {
> - checkState(in.identity.indexOf("@") != 1,
> - "identity should be in
> project...@developer.gserviceaccount.com format");
> -
> - Project project =
> api.getProjectApi().get(Iterables.get(Splitter.on("@").split(in.identity),
> 0));
> + // ID should be of the form
> project...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
> + // OR (increasingly often)
> project_id-extended_...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
> + // where project_id is the NUMBER;
> + // HERE we also accept simply "project" as the identity,
> if no "@" is present;
> + // this is used in tests, but not sure if it is valid in
> the wild.
Yeah that was likely the intention but it flies in the face of tests. Plus
(if I were Google) it would make sense not to require the @... ! Thx.
On Nov 5, 2013 6:49 PM, "Andrew Phillips" <notificati...@github.com> wrote:
> In
> google-compute-engine/src/main/java/org/jclouds/googlecomputeengine/config/GoogleComputeEngineHttpApiModule.java:
>
> > @@ -101,10 +101,20 @@ protected void bindErrorHandlers() {
> > return
> > MemoizedRetryOnTimeOutButNotOnAuthorizationExceptionSupplier.create(authException,
> > compose(new Function<Credentials, String>() {
> > public String apply(Credentials in) {
> > - checkState(in.identity.indexOf("@") != 1,
> > - "identity should be in
> > project...@developer.gserviceaccount.com format");
> > -
> > - Project project =
> > api.getProjectApi().get(Iterables.get(Splitter.on("@").split(in.identity),
> > 0));
> > + // ID should be of the form
> > project...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
> > + // OR (increasingly often)
> > project_id-extended_...@developer.gserviceaccount.com
> > + // where project_id is the NUMBER;
> > + // HERE we also accept simply "project" as the
> > identity, if no "@" is present;
> > + // this is used in tests, but not sure if it is valid
> > in the wild.
>
> Ah...so this is added to keep backwards compatibility? I'm pretty sure the
> original intention was indeed to *require* the "@", but that should be a
> separate PR, I guess.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on
> GitHub<https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/9/files#r7440910>
> .
>
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/9/files#r7443403
