Skip to content

Conversation

twsouthwick
Copy link
Member

@twsouthwick twsouthwick commented May 8, 2024

This change:

  • Adds a property to SqlConnection to allow setting a provider
  • Plumbs that property into the TdsParser so that it can be used if set

Fixes #2253

@twsouthwick twsouthwick changed the title Expose SSPI context provider as public Expose SSPI context provider as public May 8, 2024
@twsouthwick twsouthwick force-pushed the public branch 3 times, most recently from e16f2c8 to cfcf164 Compare March 3, 2025 19:42
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 3, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 59.06%. Comparing base (63443f4) to head (ee6c4cf).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (63443f4) and HEAD (ee6c4cf). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE
Flag BASE (63443f4) HEAD (ee6c4cf)
addons 1 0
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2494       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   69.90%   59.06%   -10.84%     
===========================================
  Files         276      270        -6     
  Lines       62414    62098      -316     
===========================================
- Hits        43629    36677     -6952     
- Misses      18785    25421     +6636     
Flag Coverage Δ
addons ?
netcore 61.71% <ø> (-11.13%) ⬇️
netfx 62.71% <ø> (-6.91%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Contributor

@benrr101 benrr101 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, really like the goal and implementation. Most of my comments are style related, since I'm sure my colleagues have tackled the bigger questions.

Copy link
Contributor

@paulmedynski paulmedynski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Made an initial pass, and came up with some questions/comments.

@paulmedynski paulmedynski self-assigned this Apr 2, 2025
@twsouthwick twsouthwick force-pushed the public branch 6 times, most recently from 380e896 to 2039bd9 Compare May 1, 2025 19:37
Copy link
Contributor

@paulmedynski paulmedynski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Factory vs instance in the netfx code, and a few questions about docs.

@twsouthwick twsouthwick force-pushed the public branch 4 times, most recently from 5bb128f to 8937cb7 Compare May 13, 2025 14:58
@twsouthwick twsouthwick marked this pull request as ready for review May 13, 2025 18:40
Copy link

@nhart12 nhart12 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Latest package still works for our use-case

@twsouthwick twsouthwick requested a review from a team as a code owner May 19, 2025 16:01
@twsouthwick
Copy link
Member Author

Copy link
Contributor

@mdaigle mdaigle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few small things I'd like to see addressed. I will also leave this blocked until we complete a security review. We need to do one soon for our upcoming releases anyway.

{
conn.Open();

Assert.Fail("Expected to use custom SSPI context provider");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be nice to find a way to test the positive case, so that we know we can successfully connect via a custom context provider.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I struggled to figure out how to test it even for this. The main problem with a positive case is that the implementation is wildly different between frameworks so testing it starts being difficult. My thought here was to ensure it gets plumbed through, and the existing tests ensure that once it's being called that it works correctly.

If you have ideas here, please let me know how to proceed.

@twsouthwick twsouthwick requested a review from mdaigle May 21, 2025 19:55
@paulmedynski paulmedynski added this to the 7.0-preview1 milestone Jul 4, 2025
paulmedynski
paulmedynski previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2025
@paulmedynski
Copy link
Contributor

@twsouthwick - Need to resolve conflicts here, but I know @benrr101 is also working on merging the .NET and .NET Framework instances of this class, so please coordinate with him.

paulmedynski
paulmedynski previously approved these changes Jul 9, 2025
@paulmedynski
Copy link
Contributor

/azp run

Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s).

@twsouthwick
Copy link
Member Author

@paulmedynski @mdaigle the two failures look to be test failures with sql server setup. otherwise it's ready again

@twsouthwick
Copy link
Member Author

@mdaigle @paulmedynski any updates on timing here? Are we still waiting for a security review?

@mdaigle
Copy link
Contributor

mdaigle commented Jul 23, 2025

@twsouthwick yes, we still need to set up a security review. We had originally planned on doing that for the 6.1 release but opted to avoid security sensitive changes. I'm hoping I'll have a chance soon to update out threat model diagrams for this feature and then schedule a feature specific review.

mdaigle
mdaigle previously approved these changes Jul 23, 2025
@twsouthwick
Copy link
Member Author

@mdaigle I've created a separate PR to make the non-public changes so that future merge conflicts are minimal: #3511

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add hook for custom SSPI context for SqlConnection instances
6 participants