fix(oidc): missing introspection claims #7049
Conversation
ArtifactsThese changes are published for testing on Buildkite, DockerHub and GitHub Container Registry. Docker Container
|
WalkthroughThe recent update focuses on enhancing the OAuth introspection functionality within the system. It introduces a cleaner separation of concerns by refactoring the Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #7049 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 73.28% 73.63% +0.34%
==========================================
Files 345 345
Lines 29996 29919 -77
Branches 839 839
==========================================
+ Hits 21982 22030 +48
+ Misses 7141 7018 -123
+ Partials 873 871 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
This fixes a regression of the claims returned by the introspection endpoint. Signed-off-by: James Elliott <james-d-elliott@users.noreply.github.com>
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
fix-introspection-claims
branch
from
2167e2a
to
bb922b6
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Review Status
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by!**/*.mod,!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum,!**/*.sum
Files selected for processing (3)
- internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go (2 hunks)
- internal/oidc/config.go (2 hunks)
- internal/oidc/types.go (1 hunks)
Additional Context Used
GitHub Check Runs (1)
codecov/patch failure (3)
internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go: [warning] 43-43: internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
internal/oidc/config.go: [warning] 481-482: internal/oidc/config.go#L481-L482
Added lines #L481 - L482 were not covered by tests
internal/oidc/config.go: [warning] 486-487: internal/oidc/config.go#L486-L487
Added lines #L486 - L487 were not covered by tests
Additional comments not posted (2)
internal/oidc/config.go (1)
170-172: The addition of theIntrospectionfield to theIssuersConfigstruct is a clear and straightforward enhancement to support introspection-related functionality.internal/oidc/types.go (1)
998-998: The addition ofIntrospectionJWTResponseClientinterface implementation forRegisteredClientis correctly done and follows Go's idiomatic way to ensure interface compliance at compile time. This is a good practice for type safety.
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
fix-introspection-claims
branch
from
bb922b6
to
9076693
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Status
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by!**/*.mod,!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum,!**/*.sum
Files selected for processing (4)
- internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go (2 hunks)
- internal/oidc/config.go (3 hunks)
- internal/oidc/config_test.go (1 hunks)
- internal/oidc/types.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go
- internal/oidc/config.go
- internal/oidc/types.go
Additional Context Used
Additional comments not posted (2)
internal/oidc/config_test.go (2)
260-330: The test functionTestConfig_GetIssuerFuncsis well-structured and covers various scenarios for issuer configurations. It's a good practice to include such comprehensive tests, especially when dealing with critical functionality like OIDC introspection. However, consider adding a brief comment above each test case within thetestCasesslice to explain the specific scenario it's testing. This will improve readability and maintainability, making it easier for future contributors to understand the purpose of each test case quickly.
332-378: TheTestMiscfunction tests various miscellaneous functionalities within theoidc.Configstruct. While it's good to have such a comprehensive test, the function nameTestMiscis quite generic. Consider renaming it to something more descriptive of the functionalities it's testing, such asTestConfig_IntrospectionAndResponseModeBehaviors. This would improve clarity and make it easier to understand the scope of the tests at a glance.
Signed-off-by: James Elliott <james-d-elliott@users.noreply.github.com>
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
fix-introspection-claims
branch
from
9076693
to
0f14c6b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Status
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by!**/*.mod,!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum,!**/*.sum
Files selected for processing (4)
- internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go (2 hunks)
- internal/oidc/config.go (3 hunks)
- internal/oidc/config_test.go (1 hunks)
- internal/oidc/types.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- internal/handlers/handler_oauth_introspection.go
- internal/oidc/config.go
- internal/oidc/config_test.go
- internal/oidc/types.go
Additional Context Used
This fixes a regression of the claims returned by the introspection endpoint. Signed-off-by: James Elliott <james-d-elliott@users.noreply.github.com>
This fixes a regression of the claims returned by the introspection endpoint.
Summary by CodeRabbit