ConfidentialClient with extra claims - #68
Merged
Merged
Conversation
rayluo
force-pushed
the
confidential-client-claims
branch
from
July 2, 2019 20:28
534b089 to
3a45ceb
Compare
rayluo
force-pushed
the
confidential-client-claims
branch
from
July 2, 2019 20:33
3a45ceb to
a1bec62
Compare
rayluo
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 2, 2019 23:43
abhidnya13
reviewed
Jul 3, 2019
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This
is a proof-of-concept in attempt toresolve #67.It has NOT been tested at this time.A unit test case is added.Please also help proof-read the documentation, which will automatically be published into our online reference doc once this PR is merged.
@trwalke You do not have to look into the actual implementation, but please help double check with the API surface and then the new claim(s) would be sent inside client assertion (rather than, say, as a user assertion like OBO) are aligned with our feature requirement.