-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
[OIDC] Specify https://authgear.com/claims/user/identities claim #5741
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
Open
carmenlau
wants to merge
5
commits into
authgear:main
Choose a base branch
from
carmenlau:dev-3606-spec
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+83
−2
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1ae32af
[OIDC] Specify https://authgear.com/claims/user/identities claim
carmenlau 9da5fbf
[OIDC] Add login_id_type to identities claim for login_id identity
carmenlau 98d3e26
[OIDC] Add created_at and updated_at to authenticators claim spec
carmenlau c17ac69
[OIDC] Add provider_type to identities userinfo claim spec
carmenlau 45e975f
[OIDC] Rename provider_type/provider_alias to oauth_provider_type/oau…
carmenlau File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I think it’s okay for different APIs to have different shapes as long as they are well documented and easy to understand, but we should keep the terminology consistent. (We could discuss)
Initially, I was wondering whether we should use the term
login_id, since it feels more like an internal implementation detail to me. But after checking across different components,login_idhas already been used in several places, so I think it’s fine to use it here as well.For reference, how do the other APIs handle the
login_ididentity:Auth flow api
https://docs.authgear.com/customization/custom-ui/authentication-flow-api
User import api
https://docs.authgear.com/reference/apis/user-import-api#initiate-import
User search
https://docs.authgear.com/reference/apis/admin-api/api-examples/search-for-users#search-users-by-email
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.
It seems very different...
Can we map a data model behind that we can make it more consistent?
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.
Let me draft something about it.
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.
I've drafted a spec at #5758 as a guideline for future API consistency work.
One thing we didn't cover in the meeting, webhook events have the same issue as Admin GraphQL: identity data is exposed as a raw namespaced claims map rather than typed fields. We'll keep it as-is for now, same as Admin GraphQL.