Update /token/validate docs #959
Conversation
| | `phone` | string | Conditionally Required | The [normalized](../getting-started/gs-normalization-encoding.md#phone-number-normalization) phone number for which to generate tokens.<br/>The only valid value is: `+12345678901`. | | ||
| | `phone_hash` | string | Conditionally Required | The [Base64-encoded SHA-256](../getting-started/gs-normalization-encoding.md#phone-number-hash-encoding) hash of a [normalized](../getting-started/gs-normalization-encoding.md#phone-number-normalization) phone number.<br/>The only valid value is: `EObwtHBUqDNZR33LNSMdtt5cafsYFuGmuY4ZLenlue4=`. | | ||
| | `token` | string | Required | The advertising token returned by the [POST /token/generate](post-token-generate.md) response.<br/><br/>You may only validate advertising tokens that have been generated with your own credentials. | | ||
| | `email` | string | Conditionally Required | The email address for token validation. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it's not true that the only valid value is [email protected], we now have to tell them what the email address is... where can they get this value? Or can it be anything? We should say -- particularly since this is a change.
Also: was it true for earlier versions but not true in a new version? If so... not sure how we address that but if we update the copy to say something like they can use any value, and it isn't true if the person is on an earlier version, that's not good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, any DII can be used now
The update was made to the existing version of the endpoint, so clients using the existing endpoint can now validate any DII. I haven't made it clear that any DII can be used as I'm not entirely sure how to word it, but happy for you to take a stab at this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vishalegbert-ttd thx. Checking in suggested wording on this one. If you don't like it no worries, change it.
genwhittTTD
left a comment
genwhittTTD
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vishalegbert-ttd thx! Few comments. My main concern is re versioning if it's applicable. Maybe it isn't.
genwhittTTD
left a comment
genwhittTTD
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vishalegbert-ttd your mods look great. I checked in a few more mods also:
- Updated the wording re the valid values.
- Made the copy more parallel.
- Filled in a couple of missing intro paragraphs (we're supposed to have those).
- Removed one extra br tag (I know you didn't put it in).
If you don't like any of my changes feel free to adjust as needed, of course.. But I'm approving with this.
No description provided.