Multiple Add PatchOps with the same filter (i.e. address[type="work"]) generate multiple JsonAttributes instead of updating existing attribute #213
Description
Describe the bug
When multiple Patch Add operations are issued for the same compound object in the scope of the same PatchRequest, AddOperation creates a separate record for each property.
Important node: We are building SCIM Server, so the PatchRequest is deserialised from external system (Entra ID in our case)
To Reproduce
Using the code from the documentation and standard User resource:
ScimUserResource scimUserResource = patchUserMapper.userToScimUserResource(existingUser);
GenericScimResource gsr = scimUserResource.asGenericScimResource();
patchRequest.apply(gsr);
ObjectNode objectNode = gsr.getObjectNode();
scimUserResource = JsonUtils.nodeToValue(objectNode, ScimUserResource.class);... with this PatchOp request:
{
"schemas" : [ "urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:PatchOp" ],
"Operations" : [ {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"work\"].streetAddress",
"value" : "User Street Address"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"home\"].streetAddress",
"value" : "User Street Address"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"work\"].locality",
"value" : "User City"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"work\"].region",
"value" : "User Country"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"home\"].region",
"value" : "User Country"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"work\"].postalCode",
"value" : "55555"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "addresses[type eq \"work\"].country",
"value" : "User Country"
}, {
"op" : "replace",
"path" : "phoneNumbers[type eq \"work\"].value",
"value" : "16176807200"
}, {
"op" : "replace",
"path" : "phoneNumbers[type eq \"mobile\"].value",
"value" : "16176809900"
}, {
"op" : "replace",
"path" : "urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:acea:2.0:User:joinDate",
"value" : "2023-06-30T20:00:00Z"
}, {
"op" : "add",
"path" : "urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:acea:2.0:User:userDOB",
"value" : "2023-06-30T20:00:00Z"
} ]
}The following result is achieved (skipped the irrelevant parts of User resource):
{
"addresses": [
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": "User Street Address",
"locality": null,
"region": null,
"postalCode": null,
"country": null,
"type": "work",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": "User Street Address",
"locality": null,
"region": null,
"postalCode": null,
"country": null,
"type": "home",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": null,
"locality": "User City",
"region": null,
"postalCode": null,
"country": null,
"type": "work",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": null,
"locality": null,
"region": "User Country",
"postalCode": null,
"country": null,
"type": "work",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": null,
"locality": null,
"region": "User Country",
"postalCode": null,
"country": null,
"type": "home",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": null,
"locality": null,
"region": null,
"postalCode": "55555",
"country": null,
"type": "work",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": null,
"locality": null,
"region": null,
"postalCode": null,
"country": "User Country",
"type": "work",
"primary": null
}
]
}Expected behavior
The code is expected to create only two Address records, one [type="work"] and one [type="home"]:
{
"addresses": [
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": "User Street Address",
"locality": "User City",
"region": "User Country",
"postalCode": "55555",
"country": "User Country",
"type": "work",
"primary": null
},
{
"formatted": null,
"streetAddress": "User Street Address",
"locality": null,
"region": "User Country",
"postalCode": null,
"country": null,
"type": "home",
"primary": null
}
]
}Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here. For example:
- Java 11
- SCIM 2 SDK version: 3.0.0
Proposed Solution
I have copied and patched PatchRequest/PatchOperation classes into our code base to provide immediate fix. Please advise if pull request is welcome.
private void applyAddWithValueFilter(
@NotNull final Path path,
@NotNull final ObjectNode existingResource,
@NotNull final JsonNode value)
throws BadRequestException {
Filter valueFilter = path.getElement(0).getValueFilter();
String filterAttributeName = valueFilter.getAttributePath().toString();
ValueNode filterValue = valueFilter.getComparisonValue();
// For an attribute path of the form 'emails[...].value', fetch the
// attribute (emails) and the sub-attribute (value).
String attributeName = path.getElement(0).getAttribute();
String subAttributeName = path.getElement(1).getAttribute();
JsonNode jsonAttribute = existingResource.get(attributeName);
if (jsonAttribute == null) {
// There are no existing values for the attribute, so we should add this
// value ourselves.
jsonAttribute = JsonUtils.getJsonNodeFactory().arrayNode(1);
}
if (!jsonAttribute.isArray()) {
throw BadRequestException.invalidSyntax(
"The patch operation could not be processed because a complex"
+ " value selection filter was provided, but '" + attributeName
+ "' is single-valued"
);
}
ArrayNode attribute = (ArrayNode) jsonAttribute;
//*** Changes begin here
ObjectNode valueToSet = null;
for (JsonNode existingObject : attribute) {
if (filterValue.equals(existingObject.get(filterAttributeName))) {
// Actually locate the existing attribute using the filter value.
valueToSet = (ObjectNode) existingObject;
break;
}
}
if (valueToSet == null) {
// Construct the new attribute value if it does not already exist.
valueToSet = JsonUtils.getJsonNodeFactory().objectNode();
attribute.add(valueToSet);
existingResource.replace(attributeName, attribute);
}
valueToSet.set(subAttributeName, value);
valueToSet.set(filterAttributeName, filterValue);
}Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels