Consolidate shared code between JwtDecoders and ReactiveJwtDecoders

[jzheaux]

JwtDecoders and ReactiveJwtDecoders share code that could be moved into a package-private class.

A new package-private class called JwtDecoderProviderConfigurationUtils might be a good home for the shared code.

[ThomasVitale]

Hi @jzheaux, I would like to work on this issue

[jzheaux]

It's yours, @ThomasVitale!

[ThomasVitale]

Hi @jzheaux, I have submitted a first PR. When you have time, I would like to get your opinion about a few things please.

• Refactoring. Is it ok? There is still something more that could be extracted from the 2 main classes, but it is also a matter of readability. I am a bit unsure there.
• Javadoc. I moved some comments to the util class. Is it ok the amount of docs I kept in JwtDecoders and ReactiveJwtDecoders?
• Unit tests. So far, I didn't change JwtDecodersTests and ReactiveJwtDecodersTests to do regression testing while refactoring. Now, do you think it makes sense to move some of the tests verifying the shared code to a separate test class? Or maybe should I just add new tests for the new class without touching the existing ones?

Thanks

[jzheaux]

Good questions, @ThomasVitale.

Yes, I think you have the right amount of consolidation.

Let's please change the JavaDocs on the public methods back to how they are on master. Also, it's fine to add JavaDocs to the utils class, but since it isn't public-facing, it's not quite as important.

Moving tests would be fine, but really since that class's methods are static, they are going to get tested anyway by ReactiveJwtDecoders and JwtDecoders, so I don't really see much point in moving tests or creating new ones. If you see coverage gaps that prevent you from being confident in your refactor, feel free to add tests.

[ThomasVitale]

Thanks for your answer @jzheaux, I have updated the PR according to your input. I have changed back the JavaDocs on the public methods and not added more tests since all the methods in the util class are covered by the existing ones.

[jzheaux]

@ThomasVitale sounds great - will you please link the PR to this ticket? You can usually do that by adding a "Fixes gh-7263" at the bottom of the commit message.

[ThomasVitale]

Done, thanks for your support @jzheaux