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

Inherit isPublicClient property from parent application to the shared application #2610

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

HasiniSama
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed changes in this pull request

$subject

Issue: wso2/product-is#21222

Fixes the second/third tasks of the above issue.

  1. If the root application is marked as an isPublicClient application, inherit that configuration for shared apps as well.

Goals

  • During the ApiBasedAuthenticationFlow, when authenticating a shared application it will inherit the main application's isPublicClient property, if and only if, the isPublicClient property in the main application is true.
Root App isPublicClient Property Shared App isPublicClient Property Impact
False False Doesn't inherit property from root app.
False True Doesn't inherit property from root app.
True False Inherit property from root app has a behavior change.
True True Inherit property from root app but doesn't make any behavior change.

Approach

  • The resolveBypassClientCredentialsProperty() method is added to return the isPublicClient property of the main application if enabled or return the shared application value.

When should this PR be merged

With the following PRs:

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 6, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.25000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.22%. Comparing base (a6d3610) to head (b76933d).
Report is 7 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ient/authentication/PublicClientAuthenticator.java 76.00% 4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #2610      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     55.24%   56.22%   +0.97%     
+ Complexity     8260     8114     -146     
============================================
  Files           632      632              
  Lines         47943    46135    -1808     
  Branches       7867     7477     -390     
============================================
- Hits          26486    25938     -548     
+ Misses        17628    16495    -1133     
+ Partials       3829     3702     -127     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 38.72% <81.25%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

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.

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11700039677

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.

3 participants