-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.2k
support configurable sign algorithm #9039
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
Conversation
|
@amergey, my apologies, but I think I led you down the wrong path here by placing the algorithm in Thinking about this further, the selected algorithm must be one that the Asserting Party can support. The place to look that up is What we need to do, then, is add a private Would you be able to make those changes to the PR? If not, I'd be happy to add a polish to apply them. |
|
@jzheaux I have updated the PR according to your comments |
jzheaux
left a comment
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 for the updates, @amergey! I've left some feedback inline.
Also, will you please rebase? This file has changed since you began the PR.
...g/springframework/security/saml2/provider/service/registration/RelyingPartyRegistration.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.
It would be nice if the JavaDoc here explained how this value relates to the asserting party's <IDPSSODescriptor>.
...work/security/saml2/provider/service/authentication/OpenSamlAuthenticationProviderTests.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
f15e7ae to
b092276
Compare
|
I have rebased the PR, there is a test failure since, but I do not see how it is related to my changes |
29f65f1 to
4a890e5
Compare
jzheaux
left a comment
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 for the fast turnaround, @amergey!
This is starting to take shape. I've left a bit more feedback inline.
...g/springframework/security/saml2/provider/service/registration/RelyingPartyRegistration.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...g/springframework/security/saml2/provider/service/registration/RelyingPartyRegistration.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...g/springframework/security/saml2/provider/service/registration/RelyingPartyRegistration.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...g/springframework/security/saml2/provider/service/registration/RelyingPartyRegistration.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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 should ensure that the list also isn't empty. You can achieve this by calling Assert.notEmpty instead. I think it would make sense to change the error message to align with that as well.
|
@jzheaux I have updated the PR according to your comments, the remaining point is related to collection for signing algorithm. I keep list because of the order, but If you still think collection is better, let me know, I will do the change |
jzheaux
left a comment
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 for the adjustments, @amergey. I've left one more inline comment.
In preparation for merging, will you please squash your commits and format the commit message to include the ticket number, like so:
Commit Title
Closes gh-8952
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 is your reasoning for clearing the list out? build does not clear out the other lists or reset any of the other fields to their original state.
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.
Good point, It was to solve the initialization issue where default algo was added in the list of the builder because of the fact that a default AssertingPartyDetails Builder is created and kept with RelyingPartyRegistration instance but after looking at this more carefully, it seems the wrong way to fix this, I will improve this
3af8605 to
5e356c2
Compare
|
Thanks, @amergey! This is now merged into Note that I added a polish of e1826a0 that changes the name of the method since "method" and "algorithm" are synonymous. So Also, I added documentation via b8f8fab. |
No description provided.