Prompt the user to insert their U2F Device

[mide]

This replaces #36

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-1.2%) to 39.602% when pulling 6019b51 on mide:prompt-u2f into 6f3357a on cevoaustralia:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.7%) to 40.044% when pulling 27ddce5 on mide:prompt-u2f into 6f3357a on cevoaustralia:master.

[mide]

I know we've got a slight decrease in coverage, but can we consider merging this as-is?

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-1.2%) to 40.044% when pulling 7746e00 on mide:prompt-u2f into 6f3357a on cevoaustralia:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-1.2%) to 40.044% when pulling 7746e00 on mide:prompt-u2f into 6f3357a on cevoaustralia:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-1.2%) to 40.044% when pulling 7746e00 on mide:prompt-u2f into 6f3357a on cevoaustralia:master.

[stevemac007]

Yeah, I'd like to get coverage up, but this looks valuable as it stands.

[nonspecialist]

The message prompts the user to insert the U2F device and "press enter to try again" -- does the U2F library read the keypress? Because it isn't in the added code ...

[mide]

@nonspecialist the input() line is what captures the input, but that's in the google.py. Do you think a better place for this logic to live is the u2f.py?

input("Insert your U2F device and press enter to try again...")

And @stevemac007 I agree 100% regarding the coverage. I'm finding a lot of this a bit tricky to write tests for (but I'm trying!)

[nonspecialist]

@mide oh 🤦‍♂️ of course it is. I claim my one pre-coffee brain fart for today.

I agree accepting the loss of coverage for this is ok.

[nonspecialist]

yes, this is useful