Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement Resolving Shared User Profiles in Token and Userinfo Endpoints #2599

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dhaura
Copy link
Contributor

@dhaura dhaura commented Oct 21, 2024

Proposed changes in this pull request

  • $Subject

When should this PR be merged

[Please describe any preconditions that need to be addressed before we
can merge this pull request.]

Follow up actions

[List any possible follow-up actions here; for instance, testing data
migrations, software that we need to install on staging and production
environments.]

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

@dhaura dhaura marked this pull request as draft October 21, 2024 09:35
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 21, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 13.88889% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 55.99%. Comparing base (10badb9) to head (0cb7e28).
Report is 15 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...carbon/identity/oauth/endpoint/util/ClaimUtil.java 20.00% 14 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...2/carbon/identity/openidconnect/OIDCClaimUtil.java 6.25% 14 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #2599      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     56.22%   55.99%   -0.24%     
+ Complexity     8120     8114       -6     
============================================
  Files           632      632              
  Lines         46113    46335     +222     
  Branches       7540     7586      +46     
============================================
+ Hits          25927    25944      +17     
- Misses        16468    16666     +198     
- Partials       3718     3725       +7     
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 38.68% <13.88%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant