Skip to content

Conversation

@n2ygk
Copy link
Contributor

@n2ygk n2ygk commented Jan 29, 2022

Fixes #1107

Description of the Change

Only return standard OIDC claims that are permitted by the granted OIDC scopes (profile, email, address, etc.)

Checklist

  • PR only contains one change (considered splitting up PR)
  • unit-test added
  • documentation updated
  • CHANGELOG.md updated (only for user relevant changes)
  • author name in AUTHORS

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 29, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1108 (8356964) into master (f46439e) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1108   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.61%   96.62%           
=======================================
  Files          32       32           
  Lines        1804     1806    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         1743     1745    +2     
  Misses         61       61           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
oauth2_provider/oauth2_validators.py 93.54% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f46439e...8356964. Read the comment docs.

@n2ygk
Copy link
Contributor Author

n2ygk commented Jan 29, 2022

Is the claims parameter actually supported as stated in the docs? Not really. The claims parameter is supported in AuthorizationView and passed upstream to oauthlib but it is not interpreted in any fashion.

The openid-configuration does not assert `"claims_parameter_supported". Per the spec this means it does: "...if omitted, the default value is false."

I will remove the docs reference. Scope-based claims release is probably more than enough functionality improvement at this point.

This implementation is probably better pushed upstream: oauthlib/oauthlib#799 (comment)

@n2ygk n2ygk force-pushed the oidc_userinfo_claims_token branch from 5619752 to 3976115 Compare January 30, 2022 18:35
@n2ygk n2ygk marked this pull request as ready for review January 30, 2022 18:59
@n2ygk n2ygk requested a review from a team January 30, 2022 19:00
@Andrew-Chen-Wang
Copy link
Contributor

Are you still looking to merge upstream and close this?

@n2ygk
Copy link
Contributor Author

n2ygk commented Feb 1, 2022

Are you still looking to merge upstream and close this?

Maybe merge here and then look at what upstream stuff can be done and remove this and other stuff that should be upstream later? There's other stuff like oidc metadata that can also potentially go upstream.

Copy link
Contributor

@Andrew-Chen-Wang Andrew-Chen-Wang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sure. lgtm as far as I can tell

@n2ygk n2ygk merged commit 492a867 into django-oauth:master Feb 1, 2022
@n2ygk n2ygk deleted the oidc_userinfo_claims_token branch February 1, 2022 14:17
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.

OIDC: 5.4. Requesting Claims using Scope Values

2 participants