-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
security configuration in openapi spec #528
Comments
It requires a 'security' specification in the openapi json. In the current implementation this is not possible as you need to somehow specify that exposing the existence is not a security breach. Such fine grained control is not implemented. It is either allowed (in which case it is shown) or not, in which case it is hidden. I hope you understand the reasoning. You can use the 'openApiBase' config parameter to add default configuration to the openapi spec. |
The way I would envision this was, if auth is setup then all routes are with a lock and can't be tested without keys, rather than hidden them, but I understand that isn't working like that, thanks again for your reply really appreciate it!! |
I understand your reasoning and it can be implemented. But with the current implementation it would expose the existence all non-visible tables and columns as there is only a boolean defining whether or not a table or column should be exposed during a session. |
I'll convert this to a feature request for future reference. |
Piggying back on this... would it be possible to make the /openapi endpoint world-readable when authorization middleware is used? |
@Niek: allow the 'document' permission, see:
|
@mevdschee correct me if I'm wrong, but that is to hide certain tables from the documentation, right? As far as I see it can't be used to make the /openapi endpoint accessible without being logged in. |
I want to have the API docs open and visible for everyone, but some endpoints i want to be protected and should show a lock next to it like here https://petstore.swagger.io is this possible in current implementation?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: