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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Adding Global Access Agreement #139217
Adding Global Access Agreement #139217
Changes from 6 commits
680dc12
055b6ae
76049fe
f6135fc
ddf492d
c68be02
d8d8f1d
60e0c5f
af8a6fd
a3f6250
809d491
613ae7b
1a2fc33
a04f166
fc8c260
f4876e7
85e8db5
9aa9cb9
2da003b
53e3ce5
6c059dd
4ed8ce4
9b9128d
e70f02e
255a56a
9c77a54
fcc2b9a
a15e0aa
8b49ada
6f7c9c9
319c2c9
11d0ec6
fd81dcc
d534b4b
4f2350a
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.
question: I'm wondering if it would make sense to move
accessAgreement
one level aboveauthc
, like we did with globalsession
since it's not strictly related to the authentication and it's fine if provider's config overrides any config, whether it's auth related or not?What do you think @kc13greiner @legrego?
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.
Hmm, that's a good question! I could make an argument either way, but since we have
session
at the global level, I think it would be slightly more consistent to moveaccessAgreement
one level up.I don't have a strong opinion here, so I'm happy to defer to you both.
(Also
@/kurt
should be @kc13greiner)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 to me! Ill move it up
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.
Awesome, thanks!
😬 ugh
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.
question: wouldn't it be easier (implementation/readability) if we keep global and provider-specific
accessAgreement
configs separate and just slightly updateAuthenticator.shouldRedirectToAccessAgreement
and/security/access_agreement
route handler to account for the global access agreement message if provider doesn't have any? It'd also allow us to diverge these configs in the future if we want to (e.g. we can restrict global access agreement settings that providers can or cannot override, like we did forxpack.session.cleanupInterval
).What do you think?
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.
Yea, good call! Ill make the change