8000 feat(client): replace basic auth with OAuth ROPC flow by nejch · Pull Request #2422 · python-gitlab/python-gitlab · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

feat(client): replace basic auth with OAuth ROPC flow #2422

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nejch
Copy link
Member
@nejch nejch commented Dec 11, 2022

Small step towards #1195, and also to get rid of the old username/password auth.

Also gets rid of the requests-specific HTTPBasicAuth.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link
codecov-commenter commented Dec 11, 2022

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.17%. Comparing base (45b8930) to head (be7745d).
Report is 148 commits behind head on main.

Current head be7745d differs from pull request most recent head 3733872

Please upload reports for the commit 3733872 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2422      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.16%   96.17%   +4.00%     
==========================================
  Files          88       88              
  Lines        5708     5692      -16     
==========================================
+ Hits         5261     5474     +213     
+ Misses        447      218     -229     
Flag Coverage Δ
api_func_v4 82.57% <81.81%> (?)
cli_func_v4 82.80% <51.51%> (-0.44%) ⬇️
unit 87.66% <100.00%> (-0.35%) ⬇️

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

Files Coverage Δ
gitlab/client.py 98.81% <100.00%> (+2.55%) ⬆️
gitlab/oauth.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 50 files with indirect coverage changes

@nejch nejch force-pushed the feat/oauth2-resource-password-flow branch 2 times, most recently from 7b1a20d to 90be806 Compare December 19, 2022 15:02

#: Create a session object for requests
http_backend: Type[http_backends.DefaultBackend] = kwargs.pop(
"http_backend", http_backends.DefaultBackend
)
self.http_backend = http_backend(**kwargs)

self._set_auth_info()
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have to configure the backend first to be able to make requests in _set_auth_info() because that potentially makes a request to retrieve the OAuth token, so moving this down here.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to use an auth class for tracking the data?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe, I'm not sure I fully get what you had in mind though :) but it might make this PR grow quite a bit, could you explain a bit what you had in mind and if it's more code we can maybe expand in a follow-up?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like client is a monolithic class. Moving auth properties and functions to an auth class would be easier to maintain. IMO, implementing the auth class should come first before switching to a different method.

@nejch nejch requested a review from lmilbaum December 19, 2022 15:23
@nejch
Copy link
Member Author
nejch commented Dec 19, 2022

@lmilbaum this should also help get rid of requests.HTTPBasicAuth for the backend migration, as I just pass a generic tuple in here when used. Both httpx and requests accept tuples.

@@ -75,6 +76,8 @@ def __init__(
user_agent: str = gitlab.const.USER_AGENT,
retry_transient_errors: bool = False,
keep_base_url: bool = False,
*,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does this * mean?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lmilbaum It means that all arguments following are required to be keyword-only arguments.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JohnVillalovos Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of this Python feature. BTW, does it make sense to specify the oauth_credentials argument in the kwargs such that it doesn't affect the function signature?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lmilbaum I think that would lose some of the explicitness. That's actually why I added the * here, so it doesn't affect the users as much even if the signature changes a bit. Are you worried about the typing in the backends code?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Personally, I don't like function signatures with a large amount of arguments. On the other hand, the explicitness argument is stronger.

self.http_username, self.http_password
)

if self.oauth_credentials:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What if a user provides both oauth_credentials and http_username and/or http_password?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it's only one of them it will already fail earlier. But if it's both it will ignore them and use oauth. I can make this more explicit as well :)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO, this use case should be checked and an error should be thrown.


#: Create a session object for requests
http_backend: Type[http_backends.DefaultBackend] = kwargs.pop(
"http_backend", http_backends.DefaultBackend
)
self.http_backend = http_backend(**kwargs)

self._set_auth_info()

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to use an auth class for tracking the data?

Copy link
Member Author
@nejch nejch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lmilbaum I just realized I left my responses as Pending for weeks :( just clicking submit now :)

@@ -75,6 +76,8 @@ def __init__(
user_agent: str = gitlab.const.USER_AGENT,
retry_transient_errors: bool = False,
keep_base_url: bool = False,
*,
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lmilbaum I think that would lose some of the explicitness. That's actually why I added the * here, so it doesn't affect the users as much even if the signature changes a bit. Are you worried about the typing in the backends code?


#: Create a session object for requests
http_backend: Type[http_backends.DefaultBackend] = kwargs.pop(
"http_backend", http_backends.DefaultBackend
)
self.http_backend = http_backend(**kwargs)

self._set_auth_info()
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe, I'm not sure I fully get what you had in mind though :) but it might make this PR grow quite a bit, could you explain a bit what you had in mind and if it's more code we can maybe expand in a follow-up?

self.http_username, self.http_password
)

if self.oauth_credentials:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it's only one of them it will already fail earlier. But if it's both it will ignore them and use oauth. I can make this more explicit as well :)

@nejch nejch force-pushed the feat/oauth2-resource-password-flow branch from 90be806 to be7745d Compare February 16, 2023 19:22
@nejch nejch force-pushed the feat/oauth2-resource-password-flow branch from be7745d to 7e65adc Compare October 12, 2023 11:16
@nejch nejch marked this pull request as draft October 12, 2023 12:03
@nejch nejch force-pushed the feat/oauth2-resource-password-flow branch from 7e65adc to 3733872 Compare June 8, 2024 19:29
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.

4 participants
0