-
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
Add Twitter OIDC provider configuration #24774
Conversation
Hey @FroMage, thanks Re Re the tests - just copy and paste a pair of unit tests in |
extensions/oidc/runtime/src/main/java/io/quarkus/oidc/OidcTenantConfig.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
extensions/oidc/runtime/src/main/java/io/quarkus/oidc/OidcTenantConfig.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@FroMage LGTM thanks, I've suggested a minor clarification to the new configuration property; please add 2 tests to |
May be worth rebasing as there is a message |
No need for rebasing if the branch is not too old and there are no conflicts. You can do it when you push new fixes but let's not rebase just for the sake of it (see my email on quarkus-dev about this rebase feature and CI resources). In this case, you will push new things so you can rebase when doing it. Talking about the general case here. |
OK, done. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
scopes.addAll(oidcConfigScopes); | ||
configContext.oidcConfig.getAuthentication().scopes.ifPresent(scopes::addAll); |
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.
@FroMage I'm not sure why, as it does look like it duplicates the previous line, but apparently removing it causes a test failure, can you check it please
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.
@FroMage Checking now if removing this line is a culprit
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.
Hmm, passed for me
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.
@FroMage Your code is perfectly fine, the test was broken a bit (well, I did not realize till now the scopes were duplicated - this should never be a problem but is obviously redundant and can indeed cause some problems, 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.
Thanks @FroMage for spending the time on testing it with Twitter
Still missing:
Fixes #23593
Fixes #14093