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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat(auth): Add /userinfo endpoint for OIDC #52493
feat(auth): Add /userinfo endpoint for OIDC #52493
Changes from 5 commits
29df934
3f85abd
1ab841a
da08a3c
57935e1
ec7a2b7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Generally our API outputs properties with camelBacked identifiers. Is there a reason to diverge from that convention here?
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.
yeah - the OAuth/OIDC requires snake case in order for this to be considered a valid implementation - here's a thread discussing this exact thing.
However - this is only for the required OAuth stuff like
client_id
,access_token
etc. So technically we could return those in snake case, and return the customuserinfo
stuff in camelCase, but, I figured that would be even more confusing. LMK if you prefer it that way though and I can change it over!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.
Fair point about the OIDC spec having standards for response keys. 🤔 Having two conventions in the same response is clunky. Lets go forward with what you have. Having consistency within the response which needs to follow the standard for some properties seems more important than our local API response key conventions.
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.
The
email_verified
attribute is generally serialized asis_verified
. While It is unfortunately a snake cased identifier we should try to use consistent names across various endpoints.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 named this one
email_verified
since it's consistent with standard OIDC language (example from Auth0).Also - this response contains more details on the user than just email stuff, if we just have
is_verified
do you think clients might be unsure as to what exactly is verified?On the other hand, maybe
is_verified
, by extension, implies that the user is verified, and not just the email, plus we would be consistent with our codebase, rather than the OAuth standards, so there's a trade-off here.I'd leave it this way but I'm good either way - lmk if you want me to change it over still and I will!
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.
Good points. Combined with the OIDC conventions discussed above, let's leave this as you have it.