-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
Add OAuth 2.1 authentication support #693
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
EhabY
wants to merge
5
commits into
coder:main
Choose a base branch
from
EhabY:oauth-support
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and old review comments may become outdated.
+3,741
−151
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
08c8258
Add OAuth 2.1 authentication support
EhabY c83f676
Improve OAuth token management and error handling
EhabY fd62ff4
Refactor OAuth into separate authorization and session modules
EhabY e5c5c9a
Fix OAuth flow issues and improve test coverage
EhabY f690169
Handle review comments on new PR
EhabY 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
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.
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.
Why do we do this? At first I thought maybe
SessionAuthwas a superset of what we store or a different type, but we are converting it to anotherSessionAuthand it seems to have no extra fields so could we not serialize it directly?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.
This is because I used to pass a super set before and realized that
JSON.stringifywould serialize extra fields and thus when reading this we get the superset which caused strange hidden issues (I think we should always constrict this to the exact type)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 suppose if we removed it now someone could change this to a superset later and forget they should constrict it.
But, if we are going that route we should probably do it for all the properties including nested ones rather than just spread
auth.oauthright?