There is no way to support parsing of different LinkedIn scope responses

[Guix98]

As many of the users (I think) I needed to use the w_member_social scope for my app.. and the only way to use it with this package is to change the main code and copy the whole code to my app lib to reference from there..

[d3xt3r2909]

Hello,

• First of all thanks for opening the issue.

• Second, this is the first time that I am reading about a feature request like yours, so of course, in order that some features to be implemented firstly it needs to have an issue opened

• There is no need to copy-paste whole code to you library you can fork it and reference it even better 👇

• If you already forked the repo and update the core code of this library I'm encouraging you always to submit PR to this library and then we can merge it / modify it and all clients from this lib will have it

Thanks for reaching out

[d3xt3r2909]

And I forgot about this also,

Please be aware that's really difficult to get the w_member_social scope:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/57979607
#28 (comment)

• Anyhow I still think that this library should have a more flexible way to change the scope
• The only issue is that LinkedIn rejected me when I applied for this scope, so I am unable to test it / parse the response as I don't know the structure of it

[d3xt3r2909]

Marking this as help wanted as I don't have a way to see response structure of w_member_socialscope response. Of course I'm more than happy to help with PR

[timozuther]

Same here, would also like to ask for the feature of changing the scope of the authentication.

[d3xt3r2909]

Same here, would also like to ask for the feature of changing the scope of the authentication.

Basically same answer. I don't have permission from LinkedIn to use other scope and it is really difficult to get these, if you have them already it would be nice of you to submit PR.

And I forgot about this also,

Please be aware that's really difficult to get the w_member_social scope:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/57979607 #28 (comment)

• Anyhow I still think that this library should have a more flexible way to change the scope, the only issue that they rejected me too, so cannot test it / parse the response as I don't know the structure of it