Add ADR to select an authentication approach #57
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JPrevost
reviewed
Jul 11, 2024
|
|
||
| We will need to authenticate users in TACOS to help manage access to the staff interface. The ideal authentication | ||
| approach would involve Omniauth integration, as IS&T recently implemented Okta, and | ||
| [a strategy already exists](https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth-okta) to authenticate in Okta using Omniauth. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should use that omniauth integration as it seems unsupported, https://github.com/omniauth/omniauth_openid_connect is more likely the path forward.
JPrevost
reviewed
Jul 11, 2024
|
|
||
| Ultimately, while all of these alternatives are appealing, there is a distinct advantage to choosing a gem that "just | ||
| works" and is widely adopted. Much like our | ||
| [decision to use CanCanCan for authorization](https://github.com/MITLibraries/tacos/blob/main/docs/architecture-decisions/0005-use-cancancan-for-authorization.md), I might not feel like Devise is the best authentication gem, but I have |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this will need an updated URL as that linked ADR is changing to 0006
JPrevost
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2024
matt-bernhardt
approved these changes
Jul 12, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for this write-up. While I'm not separately familiar with the options for authentication gems, I agree with the framing you've provided, and support the decision you reach based on that framing.
While in general I like to build things ourselves, there are certain domains where it feels better to trust in the experience of others. Authentication is one of those domains.
Why these changes are being introduced: We will need authentication in TACOS for the staff UI. Relevant ticket(s): * [TCO-28](https://mitlibraries.atlassian.net/browse/TCO-28) How this addresses that need: This adds an ADR to select an authentication approach from among Devise, Clearance, Sorcery, AuthLogic, and a custom solution using built-in Rails security features. Side effects of this change: We ended up with two ADRs with the same number. Those have been renumbered for clarity.
jazairi
force-pushed
the
tco-28-authentication-adr
branch
from
f33739c
to
74404ba
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Why these changes are being introduced:
We will need authentication in TACOS for the staff UI.
Relevant ticket(s):
How this addresses that need:
This adds an ADR to select an authentication approach from among Devise, Clearance, Sorcery, AuthLogic, and a custom solution using built-in Rails security features.
Side effects of this change:
The decision we make will affect how we implement authentication.