-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
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
Move Keycloak Authorization Enforcer Tenant config to runtime and improve usability with aggregated policy enforcer paths #39512
Move Keycloak Authorization Enforcer Tenant config to runtime and improve usability with aggregated policy enforcer paths #39512
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
ad |
275299f
to
1d9cb03
Compare
As said failures not related, but I've rebased on current main to (hopefully) get green CI. No other changes. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
cc @pedroigor |
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.
LGTM. But would like @pedroigor to have a look
...on/runtime/src/main/java/io/quarkus/keycloak/pep/runtime/KeycloakPolicyEnforcerRecorder.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Hi @pedroigor, Michal's clarification re the body handler makes sense IMHO, so should be a safe update, with the tests passing |
@michalvavrik Quick question, did you replace all occurrences of |
I made changes, rerun tests without adjustments to be sure it works and then I replaced all the occurrences. So I know it works at this moment. You are right, I'll revert at least one of them now. |
1d9cb03
to
ff4f116
Compare
Done. |
Status for workflow
|
Status for workflow
|
This PR is not valid - it has a risk to register multiple body handlers. |
@sberyozkin @michalvavrik can you please amend it or revert it? |
yes, but I'm just finishing PR that depends on this, hence I'd like to understand first. but sure, let's do it.
can you give some info how that will happen, please? I don't understand how situation has changed |
btw I'd like instead of reverting to provide alternative solution because changes here are important for dynamic config resolver |
@cescoffier I re-read changes and I am still missing how situation has changed in regards of multiple-times registering body handler. Could you please give me a hint so that I can fix it? Thank you |
You iterate over your supplier - if multiple return yes, you will register the body handler twice |
Ah there is break statement I didn't catch. |
Yep. Thanks for checking the PR. |
When you change that class make sure you ask me to review. Typically, having an array is not homogeneous. |
Understood, will do that in the future. |
Changes: