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 internal variant of IMaskinportenClient #849

Closed
4 tasks done
martinothamar opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

Implement internal variant of IMaskinportenClient #849

martinothamar opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
feature Label Pull requests with new features. Used when generation releasenotes

Comments

@martinothamar
Copy link
Contributor

martinothamar commented Oct 18, 2024

We are going to end up with running 2 variants of the IMaskinportenClient - 1 using the custom client/scopes defined by the app owner in Studio, and 1 internal client with some built in scopes for operations that the app needs to do. Related issue: #813

Acceptance criteria

  • It is possible to request both the public and internal variant from DI
  • Same test coverage for both clients
  • Internal logic should be mostly the same (apart from configuration, since configuration should be different)
  • Telemetry makes it clear which client is making the requests
@martinothamar martinothamar moved this to 👷 In Progress in Team Apps Oct 18, 2024
@martinothamar martinothamar added feature Label Pull requests with new features. Used when generation releasenotes and removed status/triage labels Oct 18, 2024
@RonnyB71
Copy link
Member

RonnyB71 commented Nov 4, 2024

Closing as this will be fixed with an internal authentiaction

@RonnyB71 RonnyB71 closed this as completed Nov 4, 2024
@RonnyB71 RonnyB71 moved this from 👷 In Progress to ✅ Done in Team Apps Nov 4, 2024
@danielskovli danielskovli mentioned this issue Nov 8, 2024
5 tasks
@danielskovli
Copy link
Contributor

Just for posterity: We ended up keeping this internal variant of the MaskinportenClient after all. The specific use-case @RonnyB71 was referring to will most likely be solved with an internal token from the authentication api.

However, we felt that the app itself may very well need its own way to authenticate with Maskinporten in the (near) future, so this internal client implementation lives on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature Label Pull requests with new features. Used when generation releasenotes
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants