-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 511
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
[redpanda] sasl test for wrong mechanism #2048
Conversation
- ensure that when using a different sasl mechanism from the broker, unsupported error is returned
✅ Deploy Preview for testcontainers-go ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Hi @rwaweber thanks for creating this PR. I was on Xmas PTO until this week, that's why I did not get to you before. I've shared this PR, and your proposal for the SALS PLAIN mechanism, with the Redpanda folks, so they eventually jump in here with more insights. Again, thanks for your time improving the module! |
No worries at all, hope you had a restful PTO! Sounds great to me, and thank you for doing the hard work of maintaining it! It's certainly saved my bacon a few times, so I'm happy to help where I can. |
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, thanks for this addition! Do you think we could add a warning in the module docs or waiting for the follow-up PR with the PLAIN mechanism is fine?
Thanks for contributing this test! Much appreciated 👏 |
* main: [redpanda] sasl test for wrong mechanism (testcontainers#2048)
* main: feat(modules.clickhouse): Add zookeeper for clickhouse clusterization (testcontainers#1995) redpanda: allow using SASL and TLS together (testcontainers#2140) chore: do not panic in testable examples (testcontainers#2193) fix: all mounts should contain the testcontainers labels (testcontainers#2191) [redpanda] sasl test for wrong mechanism (testcontainers#2048) fix: deprecate BindMounts correctly (testcontainers#2190)
* main: (33 commits) feat (postgres): support for creating and restoring Snapshots (testcontainers#2199) fix: apply volume options only to volumes (testcontainers#2201) redpanda/test: add admin client call (testcontainers#2200) chore(deps): bump cloud.google.com/go/spanner from 1.55.0 to 1.56.0 in /modules/gcloud, cloud.google.com/go/pubsub from 1.35.0 to 1.36.1 in /modules/gcloud, cloud.google.com/go/bigquery from 1.57.1 to 1.58.0 in /modules/gcloud (testcontainers#2197) chore(deps): bump github.com/docker/docker from 25.0.1+incompatible to 25.0.2+incompatible (testcontainers#2196) fix: go doc reference broken image (testcontainers#2195) Add Support for WASM Transforms to Redpanda Module (testcontainers#2170) feat(modules.clickhouse): Add zookeeper for clickhouse clusterization (testcontainers#1995) redpanda: allow using SASL and TLS together (testcontainers#2140) chore: do not panic in testable examples (testcontainers#2193) fix: all mounts should contain the testcontainers labels (testcontainers#2191) [redpanda] sasl test for wrong mechanism (testcontainers#2048) fix: deprecate BindMounts correctly (testcontainers#2190) chore(docker_mounts): stop doing misleading logging (testcontainers#2178) fix: Add HTTPStrategy WithForcedIPv4LocalHost To Fix Docker Port Map (testcontainers#1775) chore(deps): bump github.com/docker/compose/v2 in /modules/compose (testcontainers#2162) feat(modules.cockroachdb) Adds cockroachdb module (testcontainers#2131) chore(deps): bump golang.org/x/crypto in /modules/minio (testcontainers#2161) chore(deps): bump golang.org/x/crypto in /modules/openldap (testcontainers#2165) chore(deps): bump github.com/google/uuid from 1.5.0 to 1.6.0 (testcontainers#2169) ...
* main: (33 commits) feat (postgres): support for creating and restoring Snapshots (testcontainers#2199) fix: apply volume options only to volumes (testcontainers#2201) redpanda/test: add admin client call (testcontainers#2200) chore(deps): bump cloud.google.com/go/spanner from 1.55.0 to 1.56.0 in /modules/gcloud, cloud.google.com/go/pubsub from 1.35.0 to 1.36.1 in /modules/gcloud, cloud.google.com/go/bigquery from 1.57.1 to 1.58.0 in /modules/gcloud (testcontainers#2197) chore(deps): bump github.com/docker/docker from 25.0.1+incompatible to 25.0.2+incompatible (testcontainers#2196) fix: go doc reference broken image (testcontainers#2195) Add Support for WASM Transforms to Redpanda Module (testcontainers#2170) feat(modules.clickhouse): Add zookeeper for clickhouse clusterization (testcontainers#1995) redpanda: allow using SASL and TLS together (testcontainers#2140) chore: do not panic in testable examples (testcontainers#2193) fix: all mounts should contain the testcontainers labels (testcontainers#2191) [redpanda] sasl test for wrong mechanism (testcontainers#2048) fix: deprecate BindMounts correctly (testcontainers#2190) chore(docker_mounts): stop doing misleading logging (testcontainers#2178) fix: Add HTTPStrategy WithForcedIPv4LocalHost To Fix Docker Port Map (testcontainers#1775) chore(deps): bump github.com/docker/compose/v2 in /modules/compose (testcontainers#2162) feat(modules.cockroachdb) Adds cockroachdb module (testcontainers#2131) chore(deps): bump golang.org/x/crypto in /modules/minio (testcontainers#2161) chore(deps): bump golang.org/x/crypto in /modules/openldap (testcontainers#2165) chore(deps): bump github.com/google/uuid from 1.5.0 to 1.6.0 (testcontainers#2169) ...
What does this PR do?
Why is it important?
Would like to get another PR out to support SASL-PLAIN auth for redpanda's broker component. Figured I'd use this as a starting point for the discussion. Happy to file a separate issue for that if you'd prefer!
In the interest of not breaking existing calls by changing the name of the
WithEnableSASL
function, I was thinking that the SASL-PLAIN auth mechanism could be added by incorporating aWithEnablePlainSASL
function for an option at the same level. What do you all think?If amenable to that idea, you think adding a
WithEnableScramSASL
function could help clear up the distinction between them? I certainly don't feel strongly about this approach at all.How to test this PR