On 07/07/16 12:07, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
On 7 July 2016 at 09:45, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com
On 04/07/16 09:47, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper sounds interesting, but I'm not
> quite sure how it would look like to an end-user.
> * Are these managed on a separate screen or on the protocol
> mappers screen?
I am thinking about the protocolMappers screen. Just add another
"type" of protocolMapper. This means that we don't need to add
another concept/modelType just for scope parameter, but still we
can easily filter/view the available mappers of type 'scope
aggregator' (on the screen with list of all protocolMappers).
Not quite sure I see why it should be on the protocol mappers screen.
As it's a separate type of mapper as well the UI to define them would
be different I'm not sure I see why it can't be a separate screen.
I think it would fit better on the scope tab. It could have two tabs
"Default scope" and "Scopes" or something like that.
which place is better. However I am maybe slightly more for
protocolMappers screen because:
- It just looks a bit more intuitive to me if all the things, which are
represented at model/DB level by protocolMapper entity are also in admin
console grouped together on single place. But maybe it's just me ;-)
- For the aggregated mapper, you can select that "children" mappers will
be either simple mappers or other aggregated mappers. For example for
the "full-profile" mapper, you can select that it's child is another
aggregated mapper "profile" together with some additional simple mappers
like "first_name" or "last_name" . Hence in the list of available
mappers, you should be able to see both simple and aggregated mappers.
Isn't it then a bit confusing that you will see both the simple mappers
like "firstName" (which are configured in "mappers" tab) together with
aggregated mappers like "profile" (which are configured under
"scope/default scope" tab) together?
Btv. Our current providerModel classes usually have something like:
Map<String, String> config;
on them. However for the aggregated mapper impl, it may be needed to
extend this to:
Map<String, List<String>> config;
as mapper will need to have the property with the list of children
mappers and property with the list of children roles. The question is,
how to represent it in DB? I can see possibilities like:
a) The value at DB level will be just simple string with children values
divided by some delimiter (eg. "mapper123###mapper456###mapper789" )
b) The value will be list at DB level with separate record for every
value (eg. 3 values like "mapper123" , "mapper456" ,
It seems the (b) is a bit harder for migration, but likely the more
proper way to address this? It looks like something to keep in mind once
we refactor to the "unified" providerModel table.
> * How do users define and view scopes, including viewing what
> claims/mappers/roles are associated with a scope?
> * How does a user add/remove claims, protocol mappers and roles
> to a ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper?
I am thinking that for roles, you will select the roles in same
way, like it's in current "Scopes" tab of client (or "role
mappings" tab of user). Probably very similar UI can be used for
selecting "children" mappers of current protocolMapper though?
Something like "Available mappers" and "Assigned mappers" and
buttons like "Add selected" and "Remove selected". Also
like for roles, you can view in "Effective mappers" the list of
all effective mappers in case that you have more composed
For example, if you have mapper for scope parameter
"full-profile", which will have children mappers, that will point
to other scope aggregated mappers : "profile" , "email" and
"phone". Hence in "Effective mappers" for
"full-profile" you will
see all the descendants, not just the direct children. So you will
see also all the simple attribute mappers like "firstName",
"lastName", "birthday", "phone number", ...
> * Do we provide one or more built-in
> ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper that are configurable? I assume so
> and that users don't have to programatically define scopes.
Yes. I think that we should provide those built-in, which are
specified by OIDC specification. Which is "profile" , "email" ,
"phone" , "address". And we will need to define mappers for all
their simple attributes ( "birthday", "gender" , ...) . Those
simple mappers like "birthday" won't be root mappers by default,
so they won't be applied unless the scope parameter is used (for
their parent scopeAggregatorMapper).
For backwards compatibility, we will still use the same 'simple'
mappers like now ( username, email, full name, family name, given
name) and they will be added to token by default. The
scopeAggregator mappers (and their corresponding children) will be
applied just if the scope parameter with corresponding value will
SAML doesn't have this concept does it? If so it probably doesn't even
make sense to show scope mappers for SAML clients.
I don't think that SAML has
something like scope parameter. At least I
am not aware of that :-)
However our SAML clients currently have "Scope" tab visible to map which
realm roles (or client roles) are allowed to be put into SAML assertion.
That works same like for OIDC clients and makes sense to keep. I guess
you meant to hide just the new sub-tab of the "Scope" tab for configure
> * Can a scope resolve to multiple ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper?
Yes (see above)
> On 1 July 2016 at 21:45, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> Ok, I wasn't also 100% keen about using role.
> Thinking also about what Pedro mentioned before about
> protocol mappers. So I wonder that instead of introduce new
> "scope" concept, we just reuse protocolMappers SPI and have
> special impl of protocolMapper, which is able to deal with
> scope parameter and aggregate other "children"
> protocolMappers and roles?
> Something like this:
> - There will be new ProtocolMapper implementation like
> ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper. You will define value of
> scope parameter (eg. "photo" ) in the configuration of this
> protocolMapper. Mapper will be ignored if scope parameter
> value with this name was not used.
> - You will be able to define "children" protocolMappers and
> "children" roles in ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper.
> - For each client (and clientTemplate), we will have many
> defined protocolMappers, but just some subset of them are
> "root" mappers, which are applied by default. The rest of
> mappers will be used just as "children" of root mappers. So
> in client model, we might have:
> client.getDefinedProtocolMappers() // all defined
> client.getProtocolMappers() // just subset of defined
> (defacto root mappers)
> - For example: client will have defined protocolMappers:
> firstName, lastName, birthday, profile, email. Just "profile"
> and "email" will be root mappers. And "profile" is
> ScopeAggregatorMapper for scope value "profile" and it's
> children mappers are : firstName, lastName, birthday.
> So then:
> -- user will send "scope=profile" . Then defacto all of
> "firstName", "lastName", "birthday",
"email" claims will be
> included in token. On consent screen will be just "Profile"
> and "Email"
> -- user won't send "scope=profile" . Then defacto just
> "email" claim will be included (So for this example, email is
> always included even if not specified by scope parameter).
> - With this concept, we are able to aggregate many various
> claims into single value of "scope" and on the consent screen
> have just the roots. This would fit well for the default
> scope values mentioned by OIDC specs. We are also able to
> define mappers (claims), which will be always available even
> if not specified by scope parameter.
> - For the roles, I am not 100% sure whether to include them
> into the concept or not? However it seems to me that rather
> yes. The particular role will be applied into token just if
> all of those 3 conditions are met:
> 1) user is member of the role
> 2) client has scope for the role (so current "scope" tab in
> clients will remain as is)
> 3) if role has scopePAramRequired=true, then it must be
> included in some mapper (in other words, those roles are not
> included directly in clientSession.getRoles , but it's the
> responsibility of ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper to add them
> into token if conditions 1+2 are met).
> So again, user won't see all children roles on consent
> screen. Just the parent protocolMapper.
> This will work fine with "scope=offline_access" . There will
> be protocolMapper for "offline_access" parameter, which will
> aggregate just one children role (the current realm role
> "offline_access"). The offline token will be issued just if
> accessToken will have "offline_access" permission. So if some
> client, doesn't need offline tokens, it can just remove
> "offline_access" protocolMapper. Also if some user shouldn't
> be allowed to request offline tokens, admin can remove him
> from the "offline_access" role.
> - If some scope parameter is applicable for more clients, it
> can be defined on clientTemplate.
> PS: I will be on holidays and back on next Thursday 7th July.
> So sorry if I won't reply immediately to next mails.
> On 01/07/16 14:57, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> Reading all of this makes me think it would be
> cleaner to introduce a
> separate scope concept ;)
> A user doesn't have a scope - a user has roles and
> attributes. Re-using roles
> concept for the scope just makes it feel awkward and