You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The API Reference supports a "Try it out" feature which allows someone to copy-and-paste a code sample that just works. This system works well for cURL requests because the framework is able to insert the HTTP Bearer token directly into the "code sample." However, we cannot do that with any specific language because there is not a clear/obvious way to initialize the client/SDK with an already-existant token.
We need a simple and single API call for getting the Bearer token in this SDK. Something to the effect of:
sdk.platform().auth().setData(...)
If a capability like this already exists, then can we add that to the documentation?
Acceptance criteria includes the very subjective criteria of the solution not feeling like a "hack." It should not feel like the developer is going into set the value via a backdoor, but by setting it via a public and sanctioned manner.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Once you have seeded the SDK with a valid access key, then no, there is nothing more you need to do except to begin using the SDK to make API calls.
I personally recommend authenticating using JWT. So easy, and you don't need to set the access key using setData. https://developers.ringcentral.com/guide/authentication/jwt/quick-start
The API Reference supports a "Try it out" feature which allows someone to copy-and-paste a code sample that just works. This system works well for cURL requests because the framework is able to insert the HTTP Bearer token directly into the "code sample." However, we cannot do that with any specific language because there is not a clear/obvious way to initialize the client/SDK with an already-existant token.
We need a simple and single API call for getting the Bearer token in this SDK. Something to the effect of:
If a capability like this already exists, then can we add that to the documentation?
Acceptance criteria includes the very subjective criteria of the solution not feeling like a "hack." It should not feel like the developer is going into set the value via a backdoor, but by setting it via a public and sanctioned manner.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: