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

Add support for rich authorization requests #2511

Draft
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

VimukthiRajapaksha
Copy link
Contributor

$Subject

Proposed changes in this pull request

[List all changes you want to add here. If you fixed an issue, please
add a reference to that issue as well.]

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.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jul 2, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

- Accept 'authorization_details' field in the authorization request.
- Persist code and consent authorization details in the database.
- Add support for oauth.rar and oauth.rar.common modules.
- Read custom implementations of AuthorizationDetailsProvider from SPI.
- Display rich authorization details in the consent UI.
@@ -2980,6 +3014,22 @@ private String doUserAuthorization(OAuthMessage oAuthMessage, String sessionData
return handleAuthorizationFailureBeforeConsent(oAuthMessage, oauth2Params, authorizeRespDTO);
}

try {
validateAuthorizationDetailsBeforeConsent(oAuthMessage, oauth2Params, authzReqDTO);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

make sure to add diagnostic logs

OAuthAuthzReqMessageContext oAuthAuthzReqMessageContext =
oAuthMessage.getSessionDataCacheEntry().getAuthzReqMsgCtx();
oAuthAuthzReqMessageContext.setAuthorizationDetails(validatedAuthorizationDetails);
} catch (IdentityOAuth2Exception | InvalidOAuthClientException e) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why we catch client exception and throw system exception here?

// Append authorization details to consent page url
if (AuthorizationDetailsUtils.isRichAuthorizationRequest(params)) {
consentPageUrl = consentPageUrl + "&" + AuthorizationDetailsConstants.AUTHORIZATION_DETAILS + "="
+ URLEncoder.encode(params.getAuthorizationDetails().toJsonString(), UTF_8);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it good to encode an entire JSON string and send it as a parameter? This can cause several issues

public int[] addUserConsentedAuthorizationDetails(
final List<AuthorizationDetailsConsentDTO> authorizationDetailsConsentDTOs) throws SQLException {

try (final Connection connection = IdentityDatabaseUtil.getDBConnection(false);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not apply a transaction here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please check the other places

// Private constructor to prevent instantiation
}

public static final String ADD_OAUTH2_CODE_AUTHORIZATION_DETAILS =
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

please make sure to check json persist with all db types

* @throws OAuthSystemException If there is an error during the validation process.
* @throws AuthorizationDetailsProcessingException If there is an error processing the authorization details.
*/
private void validateAuthorizationDetailsBeforeConsent(final OAuthMessage oAuthMessage,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can we move this validation logic to service layer where we validate scopes?

@shashimalcse
Copy link
Contributor

Please clearly specify the following:

  • What types of validations are performed (e.g., tenant-level, app-level, policy)?
  • Where are these validations applied (e.g., during grant types, code flow, token flow)?
  • What types of decisions are made based on these validations (e.g., coarse-grained, fine-grained)?

- Accept 'authorization_details' field in the token request
- Persist access token authorization details in the database
- Moving common logic from oauth.rar.common module to a new rar package within oauth module
- Adds RAR support for hybrid authorization flows
@VimukthiRajapaksha VimukthiRajapaksha force-pushed the master_rar branch 2 times, most recently from 47c6ba1 to 87e7c19 Compare July 31, 2024 12:01
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