Parse DID correctly

[cobanov]

Previously, the code was not parsed the DID response correctly, resulting in incorrect data being parsed. This commit fixes the issue by properly splitting and parsing the DID.

[ianklatzco]

taking a look.....

[ianklatzco]

This change causes 2 tests to fail:

F....F..
======================================================================
FAIL: test_follow (tests.test_main.TestSessionLogin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/user/atprototools/tests/test_main.py", line 35, in test_follow
    self.assertEqual(resp.status_code, 200)
AssertionError: 400 != 200

======================================================================
FAIL: test_post_skoot (tests.test_main.TestSessionLogin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/user/atprototools/tests/test_main.py", line 54, in test_post_skoot
    self.assertEqual(resp.status_code, 200)
AssertionError: 400 != 200

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 8 tests in 7.731s

FAILED (failures=2)

In test_follow and follow,

atprototools/atprototools/__init__.py

Lines 236 to 240 in 52e1b02

	data = {
	"collection": "app.bsky.graph.follow",
	"repo": "{}".format(self.DID),
	"record": {
	"subject": did_of_person_you_wanna_follow,

The record is expected to contain "repo": "did:plc:blahblahblah"

Splitting the DID sends only blahblahblah.

It might be better to manually put did:plc in follow, but I'm not sure.

What do you think? ^^

(thanks for the PR!)

[cobanov]

as you can see here each function which using 'DID' expecting in that format, what do you think maybe we can init another attribute self.DID_key maybe?

https://gist.github.com/cobanov/023f497e6790b74e79c44c76ce67e68b

[ianklatzco]

i think it might be better to have the user manually do a session.DID.split(":")[-1] or add did:plc: back whenever they need to ^^

although, atprototools is a bit inconsistent in some places (e.g. usage of did vs username, which_case theCodeIsUsing). that would be a good thing to look at ^^

[ianklatzco]

here's the related issue ^^ #12