feat: Add appID to be unmarshalled in key file

[hreddy-klaviyo]

Add appId for Private key for applications. This field was missed from key.go

Format for application private key

{"type":"application","keyId":"<KEY_ID>","key":"<PRIVATE_KEY>","appId":"<APP_ID>","clientId":"<CLIENT_ID>"}

Definition of Ready

• [x] I am happy with the code
• [x] Short description of the feature/issue is added in the pr description
• [ ] PR is linked to the corresponding user story
• [ ] Acceptance criteria are met
• [ ] All open todos and follow ups are defined in a new ticket and justified
• [ ] Deviations from the acceptance criteria and design are agreed with the PO and documented.
• [x] No debug or dead code
• [x] My code has no repetitions
• [x] Critical parts are tested automatically
• [ ] Where possible E2E tests are implemented
• [ ] Documentation/examples are up-to-date
• [x] All non-functional requirements are met
• [x] Functionality of the acceptance criteria is checked manually on the dev system.

[muhlemmer]

Hi @hreddy-klaviyo thanks for the PR. Can you please add in the description why this is needed / what is being fixed. Is there an issue somewhere or support request? IMO AppID is a Zitadel specific fields not applicable for OIDC as a whole.

[hreddy-klaviyo]

Hi @hreddy-klaviyo thanks for the PR. Can you please add in the description why this is needed / what is being fixed. Is there an issue somewhere or support request? IMO AppID is a Zitadel specific fields not applicable for OIDC as a whole.

Thanks @muhlemmer , that makes sense.

We need AppID for observability, given we made it human readable in our case. It makes it much faster to identify during incidents which specific App is having issues.

If you have somewhere where I can unmarshal this value, please let me know

[elinashoko]

Sorry for the delay @hreddy-klaviyo we'll review this shortly!

[elinashoko]

Heya @hreddy-klaviyo apologies for the delay - many people on hols atm (including Livio) but we'll review this shortly!

[stebenz]

Hi @hreddy-klaviyo thanks for the PR. Can you please add in the description why this is needed / what is being fixed. Is there an issue somewhere or support request? IMO AppID is a Zitadel specific fields not applicable for OIDC as a whole.

Thanks @muhlemmer , that makes sense.

We need AppID for observability, given we made it human readable in our case. It makes it much faster to identify during incidents which specific App is having issues.

If you have somewhere where I can unmarshal this value, please let me know

In which situation would you use the information about the application? Would that be in a failed login? or unavailability?

I'm of the same opinion that the application ID does not belong in the standard OIDC client.

[livio-a]

I agree that this file should not be part of the oidc library and without looking at the gitblame, I must have messed that up initially. I'd suggest we move this file and all the related JWTProfile functions to the zitadel-go library and deprecate the structs and functions in this library. I can easily do that in the next few days.

[livio-a]

close in favour of https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel-go/pull/516