updated Mpesa struct to be thread safe

[phydy]

I changed the initiator_password from a RefCell which is not Sync and caused errors when sending and passing through asynchronous threads.

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 2 secrets following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

Since your pull request originates from a forked repository, GitGuardian is not able to associate the secrets uncovered with secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.
Skipping this check run and merging your pull request will create secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secrets in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
5027735	Triggered	Generic Password	cf648be	src/client.rs	View secret
5027735	Triggered	Generic Password	cf648be	src/client.rs	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secrets safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate these secrets.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}

[c12i]

Thanks for your PR @phydy. This is an issue @itsyaasir and I have discussed before.

I believe the best solution would be overhauling how the client is instantiated altogether, rather than having users create a mutable client if they would like to change the initiator_password

I would propose updating the instantiation to something like this

let client = Mpesa::builder() //
    .consumer_key(env!("CONSUMER_KEY"))
    .consumer_secret(env!("CONSUMER_SECRET"))
    .environment(Environment::Sandbox)
    .initiator_password("value") // setting this is optional
    .build();

There would need to be measures in the build method to ensure that the consumer_key, consumer_secret and environment are not None.

What do you think? Is this something you are open to incorporating in this PR?

[phydy]

Thanks for your PR @phydy. This is an issue @itsyaasir and I have discussed before.

I believe the best solution would be overhauling how the client is instantiated altogether, rather than having users create a mutable client if they would like to change the initiator_password

I would propose updating the instantiation to something like this

let client = Mpesa::builder() //
    .consumer_key(env!("CONSUMER_KEY"))
    .consumer_secret(env!("CONSUMER_SECRET"))
    .environment(Environment::Sandbox)
    .initiator_password("value") // setting this is optional
    .build();

There would need to be measures in the build method to ensure that the consumer_key, consumer_secret and environment are not None.

What do you think? Is this something you are open to incorporating in this PR?

Absolutely! Let me work on this and see how it will work! Also,just to ask, is there any issue with the current implementation I suggested?

[c12i]

Absolutely! Let me work on this and see how it will work! Also,just to ask, is there any issue with the current implementation I suggested?

Technically no, it just moves towards a direction I did not intend to. i.e creating a mutable client