Implement offline access in python #1851
Conversation
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1851 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 76.81% 79.56% +2.74%
==========================================
Files 629 528 -101
Lines 47002 41656 -5346
Branches 755 0 -755
==========================================
- Hits 36105 33143 -2962
+ Misses 10814 8513 -2301
+ Partials 83 0 -83
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
|
I think what is really needed for this PR is the ability to query Keycloak for an offline_access token. Currently we can only do that from the frontend. |
…. Lock OfflineAccessModel to DEFAULT scope
|
This is now complete |
| @@ -19,28 +19,29 @@ | |||
| require 'openc3/models/model' | |||
|
|
|||
| module OpenC3 | |||
| # Note: This model is locked to the DEFAULT scope | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this because you really only need 1 offline access token and the DEFAULT scope is always there?
| if @scope == 'DEFAULT' | ||
| # Periodic Microservice | ||
| deploy_periodic_microservice(gem_path, variables, @parent) | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this makes sense to only be the DEFAULT scope but our 20221210174900_convert_to_multi.rb migration starts the periodic microservice for all scopes. Do we need a migration to stop this for all existing scopes except DEFAULT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would be better yes. The extras won't hurt anything, but they are unneeded so we can add a migration to remove them.
| @@ -75,14 +75,14 @@ def initialize(url) | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| # Load the token from the environment | |||
| def token(include_bearer: true) | |||
| def token(include_bearer: true, openid_scope: 'openid') | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is this scope? I assume it has something to do with keycloak? Why does it now have to be configurable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the "scope" of the token. I need to modify it to include "offline_access" to get the offline access token.
|
closes #1304
I don't think this is complete to fully close 1304 but I did the initial port of the offline access stuff.