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

Fix access token attributes for federated user #2653

Merged

Conversation

shashimalcse
Copy link
Contributor

@shashimalcse shashimalcse commented Dec 17, 2024

Proposed changes in this pull request

In this PR, we are getting locally mapped remote claims from framework to resolve access token attributes in federated login. From framework we are adding mapped remote claims to authn results and we are using this from oauth side to resolve federated user attributes.

When should this PR be merged

[Please describe any preconditions that need to be addressed before we
can merge this pull request.]

Follow up actions

[List any possible follow-up actions here; for instance, testing data
migrations, software that we need to install on staging and production
environments.]

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 Dec 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 222 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Please upload report for BASE (master@b267c63). Learn more about missing BASE report.
Report is 15 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...openidconnect/JWTAccessTokenOIDCClaimsHandler.java 35.54% 153 Missing and 32 partials ⚠️
...tity/oauth/endpoint/authz/OAuth2AuthzEndpoint.java 26.08% 15 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...arbon/identity/oauth2/token/AccessTokenIssuer.java 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
...on/identity/oauth/cache/SessionDataCacheEntry.java 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
...auth2/authz/handlers/TokenResponseTypeHandler.java 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
...2/authz/handlers/util/ResponseTypeHandlerUtil.java 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
...vice/cache/DeviceAuthorizationGrantCacheEntry.java 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
...bon/identity/oauth2/dto/OAuth2AuthorizeReqDTO.java 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #2653   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   56.31%           
  Complexity        ?     8233           
=========================================
  Files             ?      632           
  Lines             ?    46672           
  Branches          ?     8592           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    26282           
  Misses            ?    16637           
  Partials          ?     3753           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 38.79% <33.33%> (?)

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.

@shashimalcse shashimalcse marked this pull request as ready for review December 17, 2024 18:20
Thumimku
Thumimku previously approved these changes Dec 18, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Thumimku Thumimku left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, please address the comments and let's run the integration tests

}

SessionDataCacheEntry sessionDataCacheEntry = oAuthMessage.getSessionDataCacheEntry();
if (sessionDataCacheEntry == null || mappedRemoteClaims.get().isEmpty()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This logic can go with line 434

 mappedRemoteClaims.get().isEmpty()) {

log.debug("Retrieving claims cached against authorization_code for user: " +
requestMsgCtx.getAuthorizedUser());
}
if (isEmpty(userAttributes)) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

repetitive checks

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12390711229

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12390711229
Status: failure

Copy link
Contributor

@Thumimku Thumimku left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

let's run the pr builder before merging

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12393258772

@jenkins-is-staging
Copy link

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12393258772
Status: success

Copy link

@jenkins-is-staging jenkins-is-staging left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving the pull request based on the successful pr build https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/12393258772

@shashimalcse shashimalcse merged commit 178bdcc into wso2-extensions:master Dec 18, 2024
2 of 4 checks passed
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