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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Storage Health Check: Check for presence of an OIDC IdP #17884
Storage Health Check: Check for presence of an OIDC IdP #17884
Changes from all commits
b0000cf
f5d7776
a7cc6f9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🟢 Naming nit: I'd repeat the
sso
terminology here, especially since the authentication method does not try to imply OIDCThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmmmm... I'm starting to wonder if going with SSO won't be a mistake as we have other SSO solutions supported on OpenProject, like SAML.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be fair, that's why it was called
oauth2_sso
and notsso
alone :DI see what you mean, but right now it sounds as likely to me that adding OIDC to names is a mistake, as it could be that dropping OIDC is a mistake.
I.e. the implementation could develop to be super duper tightly coupled to OIDC and we'd need to do something entirely different for SAML. Or the implementation develops in a direction where the storage just cares about the thing being "some kind of SSO", but which kind exactly is not important.
Right now we don't know, so we only guess which name will be better. I am mostly advocating for having the term "SSO" included, because the distinguishing factor between the solutions we have today, is that one is SSO and the other is not SSO. Whether or not we qualify the term "SSO" with OIDC, I have less strong feelings about, because we don't know how that will develop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
audience
andauthentication_method
are already pretty tied to OIDC as is implementation wise and we have no plans in the short/medium term of supporting anything else than OIDC for this.We could even extend this trait to supply a
OpenIDConnect::Provider
(which I think I'll need down the line).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oidc_sso_enabled
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good. I'll change it on the next PR unless this CI run fails. XD