[keycloak-dev] Filtering in New Account Console
Stian Thorgersen
sthorger at redhat.com
Thu Oct 10 03:18:43 EDT 2019
While looking at the https://marvelapp.com/c90dfi0/screen/59942292 I also
realised that "Application Type" drowndown for Internal/Third-party is a
bit confusing. It's not really an application type if app is internal or
third-party.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 09:17, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com> wrote:
> Okay, so I'll try to summarise this to see if we are all in agreement.
>
> Let's use https://marvelapp.com/c90dfi0/screen/59942292 as a reference as
> that shows how it will look like in the UI.
>
> This shows applications that are in-use and also applications that are not
> in-use. The latter is the one we've been discussing on how to filter all
> clients down time available not-in-use applications. More on that later.
>
> Further, it shows internal and third-party (consent required)
> applications. With an option to remove access to third party applications.
>
> It is missing applications with offline access. I suggest we add a filter
> "Offline app only" next to "In-use app only", and to differentiate between
> apps in-use and apps with offline access we could set "Offline access"
> where it says "In-use" for regular apps. Same as third-party apps with
> would have a "Remove access" button in the expanded view.
>
> To advertise applications on the account console we'd add an option to the
> client in admin console "Always view in account console" (not visible on
> bearer-only clients).
>
> Now the list of clients to include in this page would be:
>
> * All applications from current open sessions, including offline sessions
> * All applications with granted consents to the user (a third-party app
> can have a persisted consent, but not currently be in use, so this needs to
> be displayed)
> * All applications that have the "Always view in account console" option
> enabled
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 20:43, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09. 10. 19 11:33, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 14:59, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08. 10. 19 7:54, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, I wasn't aware that the old console was able to list applications
>>> the user is not currently using. Testing it out I can see now it does
>>> indeed do that, but that it is broken as it lists a lot of irrelevant
>>> clients.
>>>
>>> What it should list is:
>>>
>>> 1. Applications currently in use - this will be any application
>>> registered in the session (third party apps need an option to revoke
>>> access, which will remove the granted consents)
>>> 2. Applications with offline access (these need to somehow be
>>> differentiated from the above and have an option to revoke access, which
>>> will remove the offline session)
>>> 3. Applications that are actual web applications and that are available
>>> to the user
>>>
>>> What we need to discuss is what to do in step 3. It is clear to me that
>>> the logic in the old console is not working correctly, so we need a better
>>> approach. What users need is the ability to discover applications they can
>>> access from the account console, that means it should be web applications
>>> with a baseUrl so there can be a link to open the application. It should
>>> not list applications just because they require consent or just because
>>> they can get an offline token, because that doesn't mean a user can
>>> actually start using them. Further, it should be possible for a admin to
>>> control what applications are listed there, which they can do based on what
>>> applications users have access to and have a baseUrl set on them.
>>>
>>> So assuming there are those two groups of clients:
>>>
>>> (a) clients, which already has consent or offline access
>>>
>>> (b) clients, which can get consent or offline access
>>>
>> Not quite. The groups are:
>>
>> (a) clients that are already in use
>> (b) clients that have consent
>> (c) clients that have offline access
>> (d) clients that are web applications and the user can access (i.e.
>> account service can link to the app and the user can actually use the app)
>>
>> clients should not be listed just because they can get consent or offline
>> access, those should only be listed if they fall in (d)
>>
>> Yes, there are more groups. For that particular case I wanted to clarify,
>> I used just 2 groups for simplification. Basically clients, which can have
>> stuff (consent or offline token) and clients, which already have stuff
>> (consent or offline token).
>>
>> I think that we're in agreement that clients from group (a) with already
>>> available stuff should be displayed in new account console? As there should
>>> be a way for the user to "Revoke" the consent or offline access and new
>>> access console doesn't have any other place where to revoke this.
>>>
>> Yes, would have to be here
>>
>>> The reason why I suggest to list also all clients from group (b) is some
>>> potential usability concern. For example assume you have client, which has
>>> active offline token, but it hasn't any roles (for example because this
>>> client doesn't use RBAC). Now what will happen is:
>>>
>>> - User clicks "Revoke" on client.
>>>
>>> - Client will disappear from the new account console because user
>>> doesn't have any roles for this client and this client doesn't have active
>>> offline token now.
>>>
>>> My question is, isn't it confusing from UX perspective that some clients
>>> will disappear from the UI when you click "Revoke" button? Just some
>>> clients will disappear, because clients with any permission/role available
>>> won't disappear.
>>>
>>> Or is it an option that clients won't disappear right-away after click
>>> "Revoke", but after page refresh? This would mean that after click "Revoke"
>>> button, UI can't send another REST request to obtain fresh list of clients
>>> (as that would cause client to disappear).
>>>
>> That is the expected behaviour, and would not be confusing. Try doing it
>> to GitHub, Google, etc. once you have removed access/consent the client is
>> removed from the list.
>>
>> Ok, thanks.
>>
>> That's something I wanted to clarify as it seemed to me a bit confusing
>> regarding user experience. But apparently, it is not.
>>
>>
>>> I like the idea of using (user has permission for at least one role with
>>> any client scope) instead of (user has one role) as front-end clients like
>>> SPA type apps won't use any client roles, and it also works when realm
>>> roles are used.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree regarding frontend clients.
>>>
>>> Besides that, one of the original reasons for the condition (user has
>>> permission for at least one role with any client scope) is, that it matches
>>> clients with the role scope to "offline_access" role when "offline_access"
>>> client scope is used. Some time ago, we discussed removing "offline_access"
>>> role. This will makes sense now when we have client scopes and
>>> "offline_access" client scope.
>>>
>>> But until "offline_access" role is removed, almost all clients in the
>>> realm will be displayed if we use that condition. I am not sure if this is
>>> what we want or not (Depends on what we agree regarding the UX concern I
>>> had in previous paragraph).
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm concerned with the approach you (Marek) listed with regards to
>>> client scope. Iterating through every client and
>>> calling TokenManager.getAccess is going to be incredibly expensive, so is
>>> not an option, even with pagination. If you do that with pagination we'd
>>> need to fetch 10 clients, run TokenManager.getAccess, find 1 client with
>>> access, then continue until we've built enough for a single page. It has to
>>> be something that we can actually query directly somehow, but that is
>>> difficult with groups and composite roles.
>>>
>>> The performance of TokenManager.getAccess is possibly not so bad. I did
>>> some improvement in this part last year during work on client scopes. Most
>>> of the things don't need DB query as all entities (clients, client scopes,
>>> groups, roles, users) are cached together with their "direct" role
>>> memberships in the local infinispan cache. However for deployments with
>>> thousands of roles or clients, it could be tricky...
>>>
>> What about if there are 10K clients?
>>
>> Yep, I know. See the last sentence from the last paragraph I mentioned :)
>>
>> Nobody yet reported any performance issue against old account console
>> "Applications" tab. I don't know how much people really has deployments
>> with thousands of roles or clients... But we need to count with the fact,
>> that somebody will have such use-case.
>>
>> Marek
>>
>> Thing is, that AFAIK nobody yet (surprisingly) reported any performance
>>> issue with the "Applications" tab in the old account console even if it
>>> doesn't have pagination. Maybe it is because people don't use old account
>>> console :) But who knows...
>>>
>>> Stan suggested to wait for feedback before doing pagination. I agree
>>> with that.
>>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 21:51, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07. 10. 19 18:09, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Marek -
>>>>
>>>> One big difference between the new and the old console is that the old
>>>> console only listed applications the user was currently logged-in to
>>>> (basically it was listed in a session, offline or regular). The new console
>>>> also lists applications that are available to the user to log-in to.
>>>>
>>>> No, the old account console doesn't list only applications the user is
>>>> currently logged-in to. It also lists all the applications available to the
>>>> user.
>>>>
>>>> The old account console basically shows all the clients, which matches
>>>> this pseudo-condition:
>>>>
>>>> (client is NOT bearer-only && (client has consent required || (user has
>>>> permission for at least one role with any client scope)))
>>>>
>>>> The last sub-condition is a bit tricky, but simply said, all the
>>>> clients, which are allowed to retrieve offline token are listed in the old
>>>> console. Which are defacto almost all clients, which are not bearer-only.
>>>>
>>>> My point is, that new account console doesn't have any separate page to
>>>> manage offline tokens, is it correct? So the "Applications" page of new
>>>> account console will be still used to revoke offline tokens and consents,
>>>> right? In that case, the new account console should display all the
>>>> clients, for which user can obtain consent or offline token. And offline
>>>> token can by default be retrieved for almost every client in the realm,
>>>> which is not bearer-only. Which would mean that filtering won't help to
>>>> filter too much clients. Hence I guess pagination might be probably needed.
>>>>
>>>> Marek
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The new console should list applications within a session in the same
>>>> way as it is done in the old console - although not sure removing
>>>> bearer-only is correct. For regular sessions only apps that can do a login
>>>> is registered in the session, for offline sessions the client should be
>>>> listed regardless of its type.
>>>>
>>>> What we've been discussing here is what is the list of applications
>>>> available to a user, but that are not part of the session. What you are
>>>> suggesting doesn't make all that much sense to me in this context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 16:24, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just talked with Stian this morning and we agreed on:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It's mandatory that Option 1 becomes part version of the New
>>>>> Account Console. The current Jira was updated
>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-5628 to reflect such
>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 Filtering and pagination can be postponed for future releases. Jiras
>>>>> to follow up on this are here:
>>>>> - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11534
>>>>> - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11677
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are all aboard with this, I think we should move on. Otherwise,
>>>>> please let us know.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 1:35 PM Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 04. 10. 19 16:41, Stan Silvert wrote:
>>>>> > > On 10/4/2019 10:16 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>>> > >> Okay, so I've re-read and we're on the same page I believe. Sorry
>>>>> for
>>>>> > >> that (trying to do to many things with too little time).
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Option 1 limiting the list to real apps/UIs and those the user has
>>>>> > >> access to is what we should do since you are on board with this.
>>>>> > >> Option 2 can then be dropped completely as it was just a quicker
>>>>> > >> temporary solution.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> To limit to real apps in addition to what I listed before I would
>>>>> also
>>>>> > >> only include apps that have a display name set.
>>>>> > > Ideally, we should have a flag for this. I don't like the idea
>>>>> that we
>>>>> > > have to rely on the administrator to understand that a display name
>>>>> > > being blank in admin console conveys a certain meaning in account
>>>>> console.
>>>>> > >> To limit apps that users have access to. Thinking about this some
>>>>> more
>>>>> > >> and the ideal I think would be to only list apps where user has at
>>>>> > >> least one client role. That may be a bit tricky though, but
>>>>> perhaps a
>>>>> > >> smart query could solve that? I'm open to other ideas here for
>>>>> sure
>>>>> > >> though.
>>>>> > > I think an approach like that would work. It would be helpful to
>>>>> an
>>>>> > > admin if there was something in the admin console that did this
>>>>> query
>>>>> > > and showed explicitly which applications a given user has access
>>>>> to.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > BTV. Some similar filtering is already done in the old account
>>>>> console.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It filtered the "bearerOnly" clients, but it didn't filter clients
>>>>> > without baseURL . I think that baseUrl is not mandatory field for
>>>>> > clients and IMO many clients don't have it configured, so not sure
>>>>> > whether to filter based on that...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In addition to that you need always display clients with
>>>>> offline-access
>>>>> > and with granted consent. The old account console allowed on the
>>>>> > "Applications" page to see and revoke granted consents of clients
>>>>> and it
>>>>> > also allowed to see and revoke granted offline tokens. So if new
>>>>> account
>>>>> > console doesn't have any other place to view/revoke the consents and
>>>>> > offline tokens, it should be provided on this page.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > However if you filter to see just clients with any client role +
>>>>> clients
>>>>> > with offline-access and granted consent, it may create interesting
>>>>> > situations. For example imagine there is client, which doesn't have
>>>>> any
>>>>> > client roles, but it has consent granted or offline token granted.
>>>>> Now
>>>>> > user clicks the "revoke consent" (or "revoke offline token") button.
>>>>> > This will cause that client will disappear from the UI because it
>>>>> > doesn't have any client roles and it doesn't have any consent or
>>>>> offline
>>>>> > access. This seems to me like quite confusing behaviour regarding UX?
>>>>> > Also it will affect pagination results etc...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > With regards to this, I wonder if filtering shouldn't be the same as
>>>>> it
>>>>> > was in old account console? This was that client with consentRequired
>>>>> > were always included and clients with ANY role in the token for any
>>>>> > client scope were always included. The details are here:
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/services/src/main/java/org/keycloak/forms/account/freemarker/model/ApplicationsBean.java#L67
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It is quite complex to compute if client has permission to see any
>>>>> > single role. You need to make composite roles into account etc. Hence
>>>>> > there is call to TokenManager.getAccess . The performance of this is
>>>>> not
>>>>> > very great, however if you have pagination with showing only 10
>>>>> clients
>>>>> > per page, it should be just fine to use this IMO.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In shortcut: I suggest to use exactly same filtering as done by old
>>>>> > account console. but add pagination support to it (which wasn't
>>>>> provided
>>>>> > by old account console). Or alternatively, if new account console has
>>>>> > separate page to manage offline tokens (which it maybe should have?)
>>>>> > then filtering can be done to display clients that:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > are NOT bearerOnly && (have consentRequired OR have any client role
>>>>> > available).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > By "client role available", you may still need to consider composite
>>>>> > roles, all possible client scopes etc, so the call to
>>>>> > "TokenManager.getAccess" will be still needed.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Marek
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, 16:10 Stian Thorgersen, <sthorger at redhat.com
>>>>> > >> <mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> My bad. I was thinking about comment 1, 2 and 3 from my
>>>>> first reply.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Let me re-read the whole thing again ;)
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, 15:42 Bruno Oliveira, <
>>>>> bruno at abstractj.org
>>>>> > >> <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>> wrote:
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> My comments were pretty much based on the items you
>>>>> mentioned:
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> > 1) Limit the list to clients that are applications and
>>>>> that
>>>>> > >> the user has access to (I suggested a fairly simple
>>>>> approach,
>>>>> > >> which I believe should work)
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> That wouldn't list the clients regardless if the user has
>>>>> > >> access to
>>>>> > >> them or not. So I'm not sure where the security issue is.
>>>>> > >> Unless I'm
>>>>> > >> missing something.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> > 2) Only list clients from active sessions - then add a
>>>>> > >> follow-up for 1
>>>>> > >> at some point in the future
>>>>> > >> Yes, that's possible, but as you mentioned something to
>>>>> postpone
>>>>> > >> unless badly needed. If we keep increasing the scope of
>>>>> what
>>>>> > >> we aim,
>>>>> > >> this may become an endless task.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> So here are my questions:
>>>>> > >> - Are we in agreement that #1 should be part of our
>>>>> > >> deliverable for
>>>>> > >> the first release of the new account console and #2
>>>>> > >> implemented later?
>>>>> > >> - If yes, are we ok about postponing
>>>>> pagination/filtering?
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:24 AM Stian Thorgersen
>>>>> > >> <sthorger at redhat.com <mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > We're not on the same page. #2 is absolutely not
>>>>> redundant
>>>>> > >> with #1. It is both a security issue and a usability
>>>>> issue to
>>>>> > >> list all applications regardless if the user has access
>>>>> to
>>>>> > >> them or not.
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > One more not devices page should not list applications
>>>>> with
>>>>> > >> offline access (offline sessions) those should be on app
>>>>> page
>>>>> > >> (or a separate place?!?)
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, 14:49 Bruno Oliveira,
>>>>> > >> <bruno at abstractj.org <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>>
>>>>> 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 at abstractj.org <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>>
>>>>> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:ssilvert at redhat.com>>
>>>>> 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> > >> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> > >> >> >> > >
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>>> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > >> >> >> > keycloak-dev mailing list
>>>>> > >> >> >> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> > >> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> > >> >> >> >
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>>> > >> >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> >> --
>>>>> > >> >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> >> abstractj
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >>
>>>>> > >> >> --
>>>>> > >> >> - abstractj
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> --
>>>>> > >> - abstractj
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > keycloak-dev mailing list
>>>>> > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - abstractj
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list