Re: [keycloak-dev] Filtering in New Account Console

I believe that we're all in agreement that we don't need pagination for the Applications endpoint. And I have the same impression as Stan, #1 makes perfect sense and once it's done should make #2 redundant. If we are on the same page about this, I can update https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-5628. Another question is: assuming that we implement #1. Do we still need filtering (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11534)? On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > You can not have an application page in the new account console that lists every client there is in a realm. As I said a large portion of those will not be actual applications, and a portion will be applications that the user does not have access to. > > There's really two choices here: > > 1) Limit the list to clients that are actually applications and that the user has access to (I suggested a fairly simple approach, which I believe should work) > 2) Only list clients from active sessions - then add a follow-up for 1 at some point in the future > > My preference here would be 1 for sure as if this is done right it would be a good value add for users to have a place to discover available applications. > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 11:54, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: >> >> On 2019-10-03, Stian Thorgersen wrote: >> > Simply returning all clients is not going to work for a few reasons: >> > >> > * It will return clients that are not applications/UIs >> > * It can return applications the user doesn't have access to >> > * There can be thousands (in fact we know about users with 10K+ clients) >> > >> > That means we need the following: >> > >> > 1) Limit clients returned by the REST endpoint to only those that are >> > indeed applications/UIs >> >> That makes sense, at the same time, not part of our requirements into the >> Jira: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-5628. >> >> Doug is working on it, and if there's anything that has to change, I'd >> suggest we bring this up in the same Jira. >> >> > 2) Limit applications to those the user has access to >> >> Same as my previous comment >> >> > 3) Support filtering and pagination (even though 1 and 2 most likely will >> > significantly reduce the number of applications to 10s of applications, we >> > still need to have pagination and filtering support) >> >> We have a Jira for filtering, but not for pagination. >> See: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11534. But if you think >> pagination should also be a part of it, please let us know. Just keep in >> mind that this is not part of our plans at the moment. >> >> Do you really think we need to implement pagination for Applications >> endpoint right now? Based on the requirements you described, I don't see >> a user with 2000 applications. Just look at how many applications you >> have linked into your GH or FB profile. >> >> Maybe this is something we could postpone? Unless I'm missing something, >> I don't see a real need to do it right now. > > > If you do 1 or 2 the list of applications available to any given user will be reduced significantly, so I'm fairly confident that pagination/filtering on the server-side can be postponed in that case. > >> >> >> > >> > Some ideas on how we can achieve the above: >> > >> > 1) Figuring out what is indeed applications/UIs >> > >> > List applications that are added to open sessions, including the below: >> > >> > * All OIDC clients where: client.baseUrl != null && !client.bearerOnly >> > * All SAML clients where: client.baseUrl != null** >> > >> > This will make sure we only include applications where the user can >> > actually click on the application in the list to go to the application. >> > >> > ** Not sure if there's anything in addition to check for SAML >> > >> > 2) Limit applications to those the user has access to >> > >> > Not sure about this one as we don't really have an easy way to figure out >> > if a user has access the an application or not. One idea would be to only >> > include clients where user has at least one client role. Even if the >> > application doesn't use client roles directly a "dummy" role can be created >> > for this purpose by admins/developers. >> > >> > 3) Pagination and filtering >> > >> > All endpoints should support pagination and filtering by design. Pagination >> > and filtering should be server-side (REST endpoint should provide according >> > to our REST guidelines). >> >> +1 for most of the ideas, except for implementing pagination right now. >> >> > >> > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 19:11, Stan Silvert <ssilvert(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> > >> > > Specifically, we need to discuss filtering and pagination as it relates >> > > to the "Applications" page: >> > > >> > > https://marvelapp.com/c90dfi0/screen/59942290 >> > > >> > > The current design allows filtering by name and application type. >> > > >> > > However, Stian has pointed out that some customers will have thousands >> > > of clients. So this design might be unworkable. >> > > >> > > I don't want to go too far into the weeds right now because I want to >> > > understand the problem better first. >> > > >> > > What is the use case when customers have many, many clients? >> > > >> > > How common is it to have many, many clients for a single user? >> > > >> > > What do those clients look like? >> > > >> > > What could we use to filter on? The information we currently have on >> > > the client side looks something like what you see here: >> > > >> > > https://marvelapp.com/c90dfi0/screen/59942292 >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > keycloak-dev mailing list >> > > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > keycloak-dev mailing list >> > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >> >> -- >> >> abstractj -- - abstractj