Skip to content

Conversation

@AbdiwakBekele
Copy link

@AbdiwakBekele AbdiwakBekele commented Oct 28, 2025

Kinde issues refresh tokens with the offline scope. This replaces offline_access → offline

Description (required)

Related issues & labels (optional)

  • Closes #
  • Suggested label:

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Updated API key troubleshooting guide with revised scope examples for better clarity and accuracy.

Kinde issues refresh tokens with the offline scope. 
This replaces offline_access → offline
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 28, 2025

Walkthrough

Documentation update to the common API key errors guide replacing offline_access scope with offline in two example locations, maintaining reference content accuracy without structural changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Documentation Updates
src/content/docs/manage-your-apis/troubleshoot-api-keys/common-api-key-errors.mdx
Updated scope examples: replaced offline_access with offline in two instances within common scopes documentation.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

  • Straightforward documentation update with simple text replacements in a single file
  • No logic changes, structural modifications, or multi-file dependencies

Poem

🐰 A scope here, a scope there,
We swapped the names with utmost care,
offline_access takes its leave,
offline now—believe, believe!
Documentation fresh and bright,
Our APIs guided to the light ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Title Check ⚠️ Warning The pull request title states "Updated 'offline_scope' to 'offline'" but the raw summary indicates the actual change replaces "offline_access" with "offline" in the documentation. This terminological discrepancy is significant because the title specifically names "offline_scope" as the item being changed when it was actually "offline_access" that was modified. While the title correctly identifies the file and general nature of the change (updating offline-related scope naming), it is misleading about the specific term that was actually changed, which would confuse someone reviewing the PR history. Correct the title to accurately reflect the actual change: "Updated 'offline_access' to 'offline' on common-api-key-errors.mdx" to ensure the PR title precisely describes what was changed, making it clear and accurate for future reference.
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 176cd3e and 88b9e40.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/content/docs/manage-your-apis/troubleshoot-api-keys/common-api-key-errors.mdx (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/content/docs/manage-your-apis/troubleshoot-api-keys/common-api-key-errors.mdx (1)

370-370: Scope name update is correct.

The change from offline_access to offline aligns with the PR objective and updates the documentation to reflect Kinde's current refresh token scope naming convention.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Collaborator

@tamalchowdhury tamalchowdhury left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes offline scope in Oauth is the standard keyword. So it's a proper change.

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.

3 participants