[FEATURE] Retrouver une plateforme LTI grâce à son clientId (PIX-16940). #11609
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Une fois les applications déployées, elles seront accessibles via les liens suivants :
Les variables d'environnement seront accessibles via les liens suivants : |
nlepage
force-pushed
the
pix-16940-lti-platform-registration-repo
branch
from
653fb0c to
90d0366
Compare
Co-authored-by: Nicolas Lepage <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Vincent Hardouin <[email protected]>
nlepage
force-pushed
the
pix-16940-lti-platform-registration-repo
branch
from
90d0366 to
09f6d90
Compare
MathieuGilet
approved these changes
Mar 7, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🥞 Problème
Actuellement, nous n'avons pas de repository pour récupérer une plateforme LTI, ce qui va être nécessaire dans les futur développement.
🥓 Proposition
Ajouter une méthode pour le faire.
🧃 Remarques
A cause de la mise en place du chiffrement de la privateKey, nous nous sommes rendus compte que le type varchar(255) n'était pas suffisant. Nous sommes donc passé en type text pour cette colonne.
😋 Pour tester
N/A