Changes to LinkedIn tutorial

[ghost]

Looks like LinkedIn is making some changes that probably need to result in changes to the LinkedIn tutorial:

https://developer.linkedin.com/blog/posts/2018/redirecting-oauth-uas

[jtroussard]

Along with the updated links, it would seem that LinkedIn is expecting the client_id in the body of the request when trading the verifier code for a a token. I'm not exactly sure where or when it gets left behind but the fetch() method has an argument which forces the client_id to be included in the request body (include_client_id) adding it to the fetch method and setting it to True should make the example work.

linkedin.fetch_token(token_url, client_secret=client_secret,
                     authorization_response=redirect_response,
                     include_client_id=True)

EDIT

Additionally changed the requested resource to

https://api.linkedin.com/v2/me

This returns the following error when run

"Unpermitted fields present in PARAMETER: Data Processing Exception while processing fields [/access_token]"

Seems a parameter, "access_token" is appended to the url, a duplicate of the oauth2_access_token parameter. Removing the duplicate parameter, 'access_token', manually seems to do the trick. I looked around in the code and couldn't determine exactly where the url is built with two parameters. Perhaps someone with a deeper knowledge of the code base can point me in the right direction?

Thanks

EDIT

After playing around some more I found where the duplication occurs. Lots of the work in the module is above me so I just created a dirty work around but perhaps this is a bug someone could look into?

Duplication happens inside the oauth2_session.py module

oauth2_session.py module
|
calls ---> request()
|
calls ---> add_token()

before calling add_token(), according to my debugger the oauth2_access_token parameter is already included in the url. This method returns the url with the additional access_token parameter added... as you would expect from a method named add_token

Am I not understanding the process here? Or could there be a check for the token prior to executing this method?

[jtroussard]

This has been solved with PR #397