[keycloak-dev] Filtering in New Account Console
Stian Thorgersen
sthorger at redhat.com
Thu Oct 10 04:49:59 EDT 2019
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 10:17, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
> +1 that Application Type is confusing.
>
> I also noticed that those screenshots use the Application Type
> "Third-party" for the Google, Facebook and Github. Which are not really
> clients, but identity providers.
>
> It seems that author of those screenshots meant to include both clients
> and identity providers in the "Application" tab. Where the identity
> providers are marked as "Third-party" and clients are marked as "Internal"
> . But if I understand correctly, we don't want to include identity
> providers in the "Application" tab?
>
Yes, we're not including identity providers in applications tab for sure.
In this case they are just being there as example third-party apps, not
IdPs.
>
> So if that's true, we may want to remove "Application Type" filter
> entirely? Instead of it, we may have filters like "In-use app only",
> "Offline app only", "App with consent" .
>
So we should be able to filter:
* In-use only
* Offline only
* Third-party only
* Internal only
Exactly how that should look like, and if we can postpone the filtering to
later is another question.
>
> For the last one, I am not sure if it's better to user something like "App
> with consent" or "Third-party" . I am personally found "App with consent" a
> bit clearer than "Third-party" . But maybe it's just because I am a
> Keycloak developer ;)
>
> Marek
>
>
> On 10. 10. 19 9:18, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
> 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