Re: [keycloak-dev] Claims parameter support

https://github.com/abustya/keycloak/commit/aa507cb0e4271ff1166cb45a1248aa... I have updated my code - now it doesn't include the mapper itself, but it does include the processing of the param as a "known param" and some tests for this. On 30 September 2017 at 22:32, Aron Bustya <aron.bustya.js(a)gmail.com <mailto:aron.bustya.js@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, Sorry for the long silence. >Maybe one small change, if you can add the "claims" to the AuthzEndpointRequestParser.KNOWN_PARAMS and have separate client note for it as other known OIDC params? This would be good, because the "additional" parameters have a maximum length of 200 characters to be processed. On 20 September 2017 at 09:55, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com <mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote: Great work! If I see it correctly, there are 2 parts: 1) improvements in request object parsing - I am all for include your improvements. If you can create separate JIRA for current request object limitation, add the test (there are existing tests for request object in OIDCAdvancedRequestParamsTest. Feel free to add new test or change one of existing tests) and create separate PR, it will be nice and will be merged. If I understand correctly, this is the only part, which really blocks you right? (As additional protocolMapper can be deployed to the existing Keycloak instance as separate JAR and doesn't require changes in core keycloak code?) 2) ProtocolMapper for claims - as you pointed, you don't have full support for 'claims' parameter. Still it's better then nothing, so my vote is to include your changes. I am not 100% convinced, maybe someone has different opinion on it (new protocolMapper always adds a bit of additional complexity. However I think it's ok as it's OIDC standard). Maybe one small change, if you can add the "claims" to the AuthzEndpointRequestParser.KNOWN_PARAMS and have separate client note for it as other known OIDC params? Thanks! Marek On 19/09/17 22:49, Aron Bustya wrote: > Hello! I need the 'claims parameter' support in keycloak that > has been thought about in this jira ticket and > postponed/rejected: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-3226 > <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-3226> The proposed > alternatives don't work for me, because I am implementing a > specification that explicitly requests data to be passed this > way. In addition to the JIRA above we also need to support > passing the claims parameter in the signed request object - > not just as a separate query param. I've solved the problem > for our own use case by writing a ProtocolMapper but some > changes were also needed in the keycloak request parser (to > support the parsing of json objects from the request object - > not just strings). The ProtocolMapper I've written doesn't > support the whole claims parameter feature though - it can > only add the default value of the claim to the the tokens. > I'm now trying to figure out how much of this code could be > put back into keycloak, and what needs to be changed to do > so. My goal would be to use an 'official' keycloak with > cutomization only in Service Providers and configuration. > Current code commit is here: > https://github.com/abustya/keycloak/commit/41fecf57a982ffdb9 > <https://github.com/abustya/keycloak/commit/41fecf57a982ffdb9> > > 6e210d8bd302d23fa7884da > > What do you think about the direction of the development, does it make any > sense to put some of it back into keycloak? > > Regards, > Áron Bustya > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>