Skip to content
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

oauth2Provider properties listed as optional but are mandatory #68

Open
macMikey opened this issue Jun 18, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

oauth2Provider properties listed as optional but are mandatory #68

macMikey opened this issue Jun 18, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested

Comments

@macMikey
Copy link
Contributor

macMikey commented Jun 18, 2024

here's the jwt document for google for web apps
here's the jwt document for google for service accounts
for web apps, the following fields are mandatory (but the netkit documentation says they're optional)

  • response_type isn't mentioned in the netkit docs, but it's mandatory
  • scope (no mention for google - but it's mandatory for both web apps and service accounts)
@e-marchand e-marchand added the question Further information is requested label Jun 18, 2024
@e-marchand
Copy link
Contributor

e-marchand commented Jun 18, 2024

response_type seems to be set as "code" , because it cannot be changed for the moment, I think it must not be documented in this case
(but maybe I do not read enought code)

$urlParams+="&response_type=code"

--

scope is not mandatory in Oauth2 protocol, it depend on api you use, it could even be ignored by server according to your right
the server must choose a default one (as RFC say)

maybe doc could add mention when it is needed

@macMikey
Copy link
Contributor Author

macMikey commented Jun 19, 2024

right. it's different, depending on the provider. rather than just changing the docs and issuing a PR, i wanted to throw out an issue, first, to discuss.
what i would suggest is that:

  • we add a column to show the differences between different consumers.
  • we sort the properties alphabetically in the list.
  • rephrase some of the descriptions to be more generic for consumers
    OR
  • reorg some of the docs by consumer/use case, because service accounts, for example, are handled differently than user accounts, and google is different from ms
  • consider using the wiki functionality in github for the documentation to make the readme less verbose

@e-marchand e-marchand added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jun 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants