Add a custom OIDC identity provider test #36609
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
gastaldi
approved these changes
Oct 21, 2023
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Looks like it impacts checking the log for another test, will have a look |
sberyozkin
force-pushed
the
oidc_custom_identity_providers
branch
from
0901e87 to
cfc5fb2
Compare
|
This is a strange problem, I renamed the new test to be 3rd to run, via the alphabetical order, and looks it does have side-effects on another test this way which now runs before it. |
|
✔️ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully. It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds a test confirming a custom OIDC identity provider can be used instead of the default
OidcIdentityProvider, showing along the way how to tell Quarkus OIDC for it not to attempt to resolve the JWK set itself (for example, in #36563, a custom authentication is required to fetch the keys).I'm planning to close the linked issue after some further discussions there and deal with the enhancement ideas discussed there in a separate issue