Repository navigation
Support for configuring claims supported in Keycloak OP metadata - #10905
cgeorgilakis wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
7d19181 to
45be15e
Compare
2 failed and 1 flaky tests on run #9525 ↗︎
Details:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Test | Artifacts | |
|---|---|---|
| Clients test > Keys tab test > Generate new keys |
Test Replay
Output
Screenshots
|
|
Review all test suite changes for PR #10905 ↗︎
82d09ca to
767baa3
Compare
|
We have rebased this PR in current main and we have added support for new admin console. Configuring claims_supported parameter in Keycloak OP metadata is useful because we are not 8000 able now to show claims supported by our instance – which are different than the default. This can lead to client misconfigurations. Moreover, take into account that documentation mentioned "Note that for privacy or other reasons, this might not be an exhaustive list.” |
8a44660 to
9060eb0
Compare
9060eb0 to
952a08e
Compare
|
@jonkoops my co-worker @linathedog have done requested changes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be simpler if we could leverage the same set of claims across all the realms and add a provider property instead.
But I guess you really want to make this realm-specific, right?
Trying to figure out if we can start small by enabling this at the provider level instead of changing UIs and storage. I did not find any discussion about this, that is why I'm asking.
We could open a discussion for this. |
|
@cgeorgilakis I'm sorry for pointing this but as you know we don't have good support for multiple realms. Yeah, kinda of an old issue/request/problem/discussion .... Another problem I see here is that the provider is already handling customizations to the metadata but using a different approach. For instance, you can override any metadata by setting the If we accept the changes you are proposing we are adding a different behavior (better, for sure) to override the default metadata and, IMO, we should choose one or another. I'm in favor of your solution but we need to also consider the other settings we have in the current implementation of the provider:
|
952a08e to
0b6333f
Compare
|
I'm not really in favour of adding this; it shouldn't be required to manually configure the supported claims. That should really be something Keycloak can figure out based on client scopes in the realm. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-1 To adding this - we should generate this from client scopes instead
closes #9047
We have added separate tab in realm settings for configuring claims supported. If you believe that we can put this configuration inside other realm settings tab, I could change it.