Support http authorization in asyncapi generation #1145
Conversation
…artial data frame while computing crc32c value
| if (isOauthEnabled) | ||
| { | ||
| options.authorization(authorization).build(); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to call .build() here?
| @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ public NamespaceConfig generate( | |||
| .inject(n -> injectTcpServer(n, servers, options, metricRefs)) | |||
| .inject(n -> injectTlsServer(n, servers, options)) | |||
| .inject(n -> injectProtocolRelatedBindings(n, servers, metricRefs)) | |||
| .inject(n -> injectProtocolServers(n, servers, metricRefs)) | |||
| .inject(n -> injectProtocolServers(n, binding.namespace, options, servers, metricRefs)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is correct to pass binding.namespace, but parameter is called qname, which is not consistent.
Suggest we add a transient qname field to HttpAuthorizationConfig and set during AsyncapiNamespaceGenerator.init(BindingConfig), to specify the qualified name of the guard being used for authorization in the binding namespace.
Then this parameter can be removed from the call stack, and the HttpAuthorizationConfig.qname can be used where we originally attempted to use HttpAuthorizationConfig.name, but now qname will just work.
I'm planning to implement this generically in the engine so you wouldn't need to explicitly set qname, but it will help tidy the code if we do it this way for now and I can remove the line where you set qname when I'm adding the general approach later.
| } | ||
| route | ||
| .guarded() | ||
| .name(String.format("%s:%s", qname, options.authorization.name)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on other feedback above, this becomes:
| .name(String.format("%s:%s", qname, options.authorization.name)) | |
| .name(options.authorization.qname) |
No description provided.