-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
Adds support for JWT OAuth flow #68
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
skostojohn
wants to merge
4
commits into
chulkilee:main
Choose a base branch
from
skostojohn:jwt_oauth_flow
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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.
This assume that
jwt_keyis in the PEM format. Hm.. what about takingsigner?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 don't quite understand your suggestion about "taking
signer" - can you please clarify? Are you saying that instead of the user passing in the private key toget_tokenviajwt_keyin the payload, they should instead create a Joken.Signer struct likesignerthemselves (presumeably viaJoken.Signer.create) , and then pass that instead?If so, are we then tied to Joken? If you want to internally use a different approach to JWT in the future, would that impact our interface, which would be expecting a Joken.Signer struct? Also, are we then complicating the user experience by asking them to work with Joken to create the struct, when before the use of Joken was transparent to them?
In some ways here I am adopting the behavior of the restforce ruby gem for Salesforce , which I am familiar with. It also takes the private key as a parameter to support JWT authentication.
I am happy to change what I have done here, if you can just help me understand a bit more clearly what you are suggesting. Thanks!
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.
First of all, if I were to use this feature, I'm going to keep
signerstruct instead of PEM format to avoid extra decoding work on each request.We may introduce an adapter for Joken - like it does with Tesla for http. That Joken adopter will tak any params
Joken.Signer.create/2would take.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.
What do you mean "extra decoding work on each request"? In my experience, you call authenticate (e.g. via
get_token) once to get an access token from Salesforce, which you would then use on all subsequent calls to the API for authentication. So you only really use the pem string once, to get the access_token. The access_token you get after JWT auth is the same as the access_token you get from any other oauth flow..Sorry that I am having trouble following your concerns here.