Unlike many projects on GitHub, the Go project does not use its bug tracker for general discussion or asking questions.
We only use our bug tracker for tracking bugs and tracking proposals going through the [Proposal Process](https://go.dev/s/proposal-process).

For asking questions, see:

* [The golang-nuts mailing list](https://groups.google.com/d/forum/golang-nuts)

* [The Go Forum](https://forum.golangbridge.org/), a web-based forum

But doing that, in some minutes or hours the attackers would have guessed the correct username and password, with the "help" of our application, just using the time taken to answer.

#### Fix it with `secrets.compare_digest()` { #fix-it-with-secrets-compare-digest }

But in our code we are actually using `secrets.compare_digest()`.

* find the module `dependencies` (an imaginary file at `app/routers/dependencies.py`)...
* and from it, import the function `get_token_header`.

But that file doesn't exist, our dependencies are in a file at `app/dependencies.py`.

Remember how our app/file structure looks like:

<img src="/img/tutorial/bigger-applications/package.drawio.svg">

---

The two dots `..`, like in:

```Python

version: 2
updates:
# TODO(b/170636568): Enable Maven updates? Perhaps wait until we can more
# easily import the generated PRs into our internal repo.
#  - package-ecosystem: "maven"
#    directory: "/"
#    schedule:
#      interval: "weekly"
#    groups:
#      dependencies:
#        applies-to: version-updates
#        patterns:
#          - "*"
#  - package-ecosystem: "maven"
#    directory: "/android"
#    schedule:

      // We check the state after adding the listener as a way to ensure that our listener was added
      // to a NEW service.
      checkArgument(service.state() == NEW, "Can only manage NEW services, %s", service);
    }
    // We have installed all of our listeners and after this point any state transition should be
    // correct.
    this.state.markReady();
  }

  /**

            verify(mockReferralData, times(1)).getDomain();

            // Test with concrete implementation
            String concreteDomain = concreteImplementation.getDomain();
            // Should be DOMAIN based on our initialization
            assertEquals("DOMAIN", concreteDomain);
        }

        @Test
        @DisplayName("Should get link")
        void testGetLink() {

			lifecycleResponse:  []byte(""),
			errorResponse: APIErrorResponse{
				Resource: SlashSeparator + bucketName + SlashSeparator,
				Code:     "InvalidAccessKeyId",
				Message:  "The Access Key Id you provided does not exist in our records.",
			},
			shouldPass: false,
		},
		// PUT empty credentials
		{
			method:             http.MethodPut,
			bucketName:         bucketName,
			accessKey:          "",
			secretKey:          "",

 * limitations under the License.
 */

package com.google.common.collect.testing;

import com.google.common.annotations.GwtCompatible;

/**
 * A type which will never be used as the element type of any collection in our tests, and so can be
 * used to test how a Collection behaves when given input of the wrong type.
 */
@GwtCompatible
public enum WrongType {
  VALUE

     * have the same nullness as E." Since we can't, we declare it to return nullable elements, and
     * we can override it in our non-null-guaranteeing subtypes to present a better signature to
     * their users.
     *
     * However, the checker *we* use has this special knowledge about `Collection.toArray()` anyway,
     * so in our implementation code, we can rely on that. That's why the expression below
     * type-checks.
     */

   * even worse. For now, we just suppress and move on with our lives.
   *
   * - https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/65
   *
   * - https://github.com/jspecify/jdk/commit/71d826792b8c7ef95d492c50a274deab938f2552
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): Is the unchecked cast avoidable? Would System.arraycopy be similarly fast (if
   * likewise not type-checked)? Could our single caller do something different?
   */