Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Introduce inclusive authentication mode, improve documentation of inclusive authentication and make its config runtime #46183
Introduce inclusive authentication mode, improve documentation of inclusive authentication and make its config runtime #46183
Changes from all commits
ccec714
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think, given the example you give about relying on the lax mode inclusive authentication to decide which mechanisms did the authentication makes this line a bit confusing... Futhermore, once we at some point just let users configure more than one mechanism per path, the inclusive strict mode can impact if it is
and
oror
combination... IMHO it is worth dropping this line and for us keep tuning things going forward.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This line is also present in the main branch already.
I am not sure if I understand you, but inclusive authentication does not apply when for certain path user specifically selected one mechanism. I don't think it even makes sense. If I annotate endpoint with
@BasicAuthentication
I expect to use this mechanism and not all the registered mechanisms. I suspect I misunderstood your comment?I think it is extremely important information. You need to know that if you select specific path-matching authentication mechanism, inclusive authentication does not happen.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@michalvavrik
It is just that you added a doc section called
Using inclusive authentication to enable path-based authentication
but this line says the inclusive authentication is ignored for the path based authentication. So the messaging is conflicting,How about saying something like
This property is ignored for the enabled path based authentication which can currently support only a single authentication mechanism.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@michalvavrik Never mind, that doc section clarifies that it is used in the lax mode, the messaging around inclusive authentication can be reworked later when more than one mechanism is supported for a specific path
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see, yes that is a good point.
I put #46167 on my list, I don't think it is realistic someone else will implement it anytime soon, so I'll try to go back to it in few months and we can revise this docs.