-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
User Access module implementation with the microsoft identity framework. #295
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@kgrzybek I have checked a bit, I downloaded the PR code, and currently they fail the Integration test (There is no test to the new functionality). I do not like the Idea that every class in the UserModule projects is duplicated and only a small quantity are new clases, I think there is maybe a better approach to do this (thinking how to do it). Almost in 400 files the unique change is the using directive. Because on the future if we would like to add something to the User Module we need to change in 2 places the same and that is not maintainable, even if we do a third user module implementation, that will be a nightmare to maintain. But if we will only replace everything it's OK, but if we like to use back Identity Server with the changes, need to change all the files?? And there will not be an easy option to Swap the implementations on runtime, only on compile time. I like:
|
@kgrzybek, @bistok Thank you both for your time.
That's because I renamed the original project. I'm sorry about that. I think the new implementation can be seen as the main User Module and we don't need more than one. It can be used independent or in combination with any Id-Provider. If you would like to add more Id-Providers, than they should be implemented as separate applications. Normally you would have one Id-Provider serving multiple applications and not one per project. Just like all Id-Providers they must be configured in the API project like so.
Here comes the interesting part where we call into the User Access module
|
@jfstirn I am with you if we only will keep Microsoft Identity Framework that is OK and we can keep with you implementation, but need to update the test projects. If we like to have multiple implementations, we need to follow other process. That is something that @kgrzybek can say. You can see the conversation we have on #289 |
I like the proposed implementation, with it we decuple the authentication implementation from the user registration.
This is true and that was the reason for duplication.
This will convert the solution from a Modular Monolith to a micro services.
Ok, Good to know, lets see what happen from this ;)
I was refactoring the test code for it to run, but will stop that work waiting for number 3. |
It's difficult to demonstrate three separate ways of implementing identity without it becoming totally confusing. I'm going to look into replacing IDS4 with the new Microsoft identity. We don't really need everything IDS4/Duande gives you, we will only have one client (a blazor front end) |
Is there any news regarding using Microsoft Identity instead of IdentityServer? |
User Access module based on Microsoft Identity Framework.
I just added the whole module without removing the existing one. Just that you can check if it meets your expectations.
Futhermore I didn't know how you wolud structrue the hole project to have 3 implementations of the user access module.
Can you please check and let me know how I or we should proceed with this?
Best regards