feat(clients): add a closed OIDC RP claim mapper profile - #72
feat(clients): add a closed OIDC RP claim mapper profile#72seonghobae wants to merge 30 commits into
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 21 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (18)
Comment |
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@coderabbitai review Review the exact current head. Focus on the closed mapper allowlist, self-pinned audience, non-reflective nested parsing, canonical mapper ordering, Keycloak-generated mapper-ID normalization, semantic drift detection, secret non-observability, and standalone/CWL/Naruon module boundaries. |
|
|
Pull request was closed
|
@opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review Review-only request for exact current head |
|
@coderabbitai review Review exact current head |
|
Your plan includes PR reviews subject to rate limits. More reviews will be available in 5 minutes. |
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head91a3a7190a589ac82615e283886681c0e04ece03. -
Head SHA:
91a3a7190a589ac82615e283886681c0e04ece03 -
Workflow run: 31268556874
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: ci.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: ci.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (8 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (8 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (5 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["Test (4 files)"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (4 files)"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Workflow: ci.yml"]
S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: ci.yml"]
R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Changed file (8 files)"]
S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (8 files)"]
R2 --> V2["required checks"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (5 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["Test (4 files)"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (4 files)"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
|
2 participants
Buyer-visible product gap
Keyverse can validate and reconcile secret-free relying-party metadata, but Naruon also requires one audience mapper and bounded
role,org, andworkspaceclaims. Without a reviewed runtime path for those mappers, Naruon remains coupled to an application client embedded in the portable realm and cannot be fully recovered from Keyverse desired state.Implemented bounded slice
protocolMapperson the closed RP representation;oidc-audience-mapper, pinned to the registrationclientId;role,org, andworkspace;deploy/templates/oidc-rp-naruon.json;TDD evidence
The first production-shaped Naruon mapper test failed with HTTP 422 because
protocolMapperswas not an allowed field. After implementation, CI exposed a response-regression where the endpoint omittedready_to_apply; the result model contract was restored. Additional integration tests exercise the shipped runtime template, Keycloak-generated mapper IDs, mapper reordering, and semantic drift.Standards and doctoring
The doctoring record separates OpenID Connect audience/claim semantics, RFC 9068 access-token audience guidance, RFC 8725 JWT validation guidance, current Keycloak
ClientRepresentation/ProtocolMapperRepresentationbehavior, stricter Keyverse policy, measured evidence, assumptions, and limitations. References use APA 7th style; no formal conformance claim is made.Protected completion
Merge requires locked installation, Ruff, Interrogate 100%, complete pytest, production statement and branch coverage 100%, package and deployment-template validation, exact-current-head CI, CodeQL, Semgrep, Security Scan, current-head independent review, zero unresolved review threads, and repository branch protection.
No self-approval, administrator bypass, version bump, tag, release,
COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN, or review-agent credential change is included. Controlled authorization-code/PKCE login and downstream authorization acceptance remain separate evidence boundaries.Closes #70
Tracks #2.