-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Adaptation to other OAuth2 services: Pull requests or forks? #65
Comments
@mbland good questions. Let me dig into your current set of changes to understand what would be involved. I'm not opposed to some generalization for other oauth provider endpoints and requested scopes, but i suspect it will become tricky as oauth providers don't have a consistent way to echo back identity after authentication which GAP needs. I'm also keen to eventually support #28 which likely ties some functionality closer to Google's apis. |
OK, I'll keep hacking on 18F/oauth2_proxy to see if I can come up with some seams that make sense, and we can consider later whether they're worth pushing back up here. Feel free to subscribe to our repo, jump in on PRs, etc. |
FYI, I've merged the latest changes from here into the If you're curious, I created a I still need to add proper tests, but in the off chance you'd be interested in having any of this pushed upstream, let me know and I can prioritize that. |
wow. Amazingly that refactoring came out very clean. Totally would accept as a PR. And naming is hard, but renaming this project to a more generic "oauth2_proxy" is not a bad idea either. |
Cool! I'll start sending PRs your way to build this up bit-by-bit. |
This is the first step towards genericizing the google_auth_proxy to support OAuth2 providers other than Google as discussed in bitly#65. The `api` package will enable multiple providers to use the same `api.Request()` implementation.
This is the first step towards genericizing the google_auth_proxy to support OAuth2 providers other than Google as discussed in bitly#65. The `api` package will enable multiple providers to use the same `api.Request()` implementation.
I've managed to successfully fork this repo and adapt it to a new OAuth2 provider. I know others have done the same. However, given how little work it was, I'm wondering if you'd be open to generalizing the server to support multiple providers out-of-the-box, defaulting to Google but allowing for other providers.
I'm happy to take this on, and add tests as I go, as you can see from the latter link. (I'm about to file a PR for a bug I found in
Options.Validate
as part of this process.) That said, I understand if you'd rather keep this instance "pure" and let forks for other providers proliferate as they will.Apologies if you've address this before; didn't see this come up in any earlier issue. Also, thanks for writing this; we've been using it successfully for months now on our Google-managed domain.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: