Skip to content

Conversation

@jonhoo
Copy link
Owner

@jonhoo jonhoo commented Feb 8, 2025

I honestly couldn't tell you why NO_PAD was chosen. It seems to have happened somewhat arbitrarily when the base64 major upgrade that introduced the distinction landed in #253.

Time to fix that.

Fixes #299.


This change is Reviewable

I honestly couldn't tell you why `NO_PAD` was chosen. It seems to have
happened somewhat arbitrarily when the `base64` major upgrade that
introduced the distinction landed in #253.

Time to fix that.

Fixes #299.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 8, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.5%. Comparing base (6fe22ed) to head (fd34fab).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/client.rs 92.7% <100.0%> (ø)

@jonhoo jonhoo merged commit 70ed8f1 into main Feb 8, 2025
20 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Google Mail IMAP response with padding makes auth parse error

2 participants