doorkeeper-grants_assertion icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
doorkeeper-grants_assertion copied to clipboard

Roadmap for 1.0

Open matfiz opened this issue 9 years ago • 16 comments

As @tute has stated, this gem will be released to RubyGems once it reaches it's 1.0 version. I think it is a good idea to state clearly the roadmap, i.e. what is missing and on what we should focus the development.

  1. Improve documentation for implementing authentication against most common 3rd party OAuth2 providers (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.5)
  • [x] add example for utilizing Facebook login
  • [x] add example for utilizing Google login (CrossClient Auth)
  1. Improve error reporting
  • [ ] pass error message to final response from doorkeeper (https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/pull/749)
  1. Improve test coverage

Do you have anything else to add?

matfiz avatar Jan 21 '16 20:01 matfiz

I'm pretty sure a lot of these depend on the following:

  • [ ] Upgrade to use doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper#733 when it's merged
  • [ ] Actually follow the RFC

NuckChorris avatar Jan 21 '16 21:01 NuckChorris

One thing I've been thinking is how much abstraction this should offer, should we be providing an OmniAuth-style strategies for verification or just bare metal "hand you the token" stuff? Or potentially some combo? Token verification is a pretty big task, and it'd be nice to have it separated at least from finding a user

NuckChorris avatar Jan 27 '16 21:01 NuckChorris

If we could address the three mentioned features, it'd be a great progress.

ebosantos avatar Apr 28 '16 23:04 ebosantos

I have added examples in the wiki: https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper-grants_assertion/wiki. Comments welcomed

matfiz avatar Jul 14 '16 09:07 matfiz

It's been a while since I read the spec but it seemed to me like we were supposed to use a separate uri for each provider, not pass the provider in as a param. That's why I've been waiting for Doorkeeper to add a strategy registration system for this iirc

NuckChorris avatar Jul 14 '16 20:07 NuckChorris

Would love to see some movement on this

MarkMurphy avatar Feb 26 '17 03:02 MarkMurphy

Me too. @matfiz do you have more ideas to improve the gem?

dsantosmerino avatar Oct 16 '17 13:10 dsantosmerino

@dsantosmerino Basically, we are a little bit stuck here. The major problem is we are not following the RFC. There were some movements towards supporting the grant flow in a correct way (see: https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/pull/733) and the last comment here: https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper-grants_assertion/issues/9, but it never made to doorkeeper. If you have time, I am willing to help you to get it done.

matfiz avatar Oct 16 '17 14:10 matfiz

Knock knock! 😄 So, I came across this while trying to figure out how we might add a custom grant type to doorkeeper. We have a SMS grant type that is a variation of authorization code and resource owner password credentials. Is this still dead in the water? We are fairly motivated to make it work.

johnschult avatar Mar 13 '19 16:03 johnschult

Any PRs are welcome :) @johnschult

nbulaj avatar Mar 13 '19 16:03 nbulaj

Yeah I get that 😉 I suppose we need to figure out where the "problem" is. From what I gather, it is not sufficient to have the grant type be "assertion" when the correct grant type should be something like urn:ietf:params:oauth:<value>. Is that the whole issue? Forgive my ignorance, I just stumbled on doorkeeper and am trying to figure out if it is a path we want to go down. We have a fairly non-standard OAuth 2.0 authorization server we have implemented that needs some TLC. I think much of what we need can be done with doorkeeper, but the custom grant type would be a bit of a stumbling block.

johnschult avatar Mar 13 '19 16:03 johnschult

You're correct @johnschult! The problem is that we need to support the correct URN in doorkeeper gem. Can you provide a comment it this issue https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper-grants_assertion/issues/9 ? It would be great to push things forward!

matfiz avatar Mar 14 '19 08:03 matfiz

Hi @matfiz , hope you're well! Could we release 0.3 with latest changes to rubygems? Unfortunately I don't have permissions for that :disappointed:

nbulaj avatar May 27 '20 06:05 nbulaj

Or maybe @tute could give me such permissions for RubyGems, I see you as the owner of the gem

nbulaj avatar May 29 '20 09:05 nbulaj

Send me your email at RubyGems Nikita, and I'll do it.

tute avatar May 29 '20 12:05 tute

All done!

tute avatar May 29 '20 13:05 tute