Re: [keycloak-dev] Scope parameter support

On 7 July 2016 at 09:45, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: 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. Sounds good SAML doesn't have this concept does it? If so it probably doesn't even make sense to show scope mappers for SAML clients. > * Can a scope resolve to multiple ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper? > > Yes (see above) > > Marek > On 1 July 2016 at 21:45, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; 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. >> >> Mare >> >> >> >> 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 retrofitted. >>>> >>> +10000 >>> >> >>