Hi there.
zero knowledge of Oath, just reading through the v35-0001.
forgive me if my comments are naive.
+static int
+parse_interval(struct async_ctx *actx, const char *interval_str)
+{
+ double parsed;
+ int cnt;
+
+ /*
+ * The JSON lexer has already validated the number, which is stricter than
+ * the %f format, so we should be good to use sscanf().
+ */
+ cnt = sscanf(interval_str, "%lf", &parsed);
+
+ if (cnt != 1)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Either the lexer screwed up or our assumption above isn't true, and
+ * either way a developer needs to take a look.
+ */
+ Assert(cnt == 1);
+ return 1; /* don't fall through in release builds */
+ }
+
+ parsed = ceil(parsed);
+
+ if (parsed < 1)
+ return actx->debugging ? 0 : 1;
+
+ else if (INT_MAX <= parsed)
+ return INT_MAX;
+
+ return parsed;
+}
The above Assert looks very wrong to me.
we can also use PG_INT32_MAX, instead of INT_MAX
(generally i think PG_INT32_MAX looks more intuitive to me)
+/*
+ * The Device Authorization response, described by RFC 8628:
+ *
+ * https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8628#section-3.2
+ */
+struct device_authz
+{
+ char *device_code;
+ char *user_code;
+ char *verification_uri;
+ char *interval_str;
+
+ /* Fields below are parsed from the corresponding string above. */
+ int interval;
+};
click through the link https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8628#section-3.2
it says
"
expires_in
REQUIRED. The lifetime in seconds of the "device_code" and
"user_code".
interval
OPTIONAL. The minimum amount of time in seconds that the client
SHOULD wait between polling requests to the token endpoint. If no
value is provided, clients MUST use 5 as the default.
"
these two fields seem to differ from struct device_authz.
