4.x: UPN claim should be optional (#5151) #9640
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
oracle-contributor-agreement
bot
added
the
OCA Verified
Verdent
reviewed
Jan 22, 2025
| */ | ||
| public Optional<String> userPrincipal() { | ||
| return userPrincipal; | ||
| return userPrincipal |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this causes inconsistency between the runtime model and the JWT which it generates. From my point of view this method should return only the set userPrincipal value and on places where this is used (and functionality based on the MP spec needs to be present), there might be those falbacks added. This causes backwards incompatible functionality, but on the other hand, I see this rather as a bug fix, so it should not be a problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any other opinions about this from others?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Fixes #5151
Original PR is here.
Code is the same, but I have already signed OCA (my little help :) ).
Maybe, some changes in the docs should be done, but I'm not sure. I've read this doc, but I didn't find any mentions.