Fix user_id type mismatch when user claim is not pk#851
Merged
vgrozdanic merged 2 commits intojazzband:masterfrom Feb 6, 2025
Merged
Fix user_id type mismatch when user claim is not pk#851vgrozdanic merged 2 commits intojazzband:masterfrom
vgrozdanic merged 2 commits intojazzband:masterfrom
Conversation
vgrozdanic
reviewed
Jan 11, 2025
| token.blacklist() | ||
| outstanding_token = OutstandingToken.objects.get(token=token) | ||
| self.assertEqual(outstanding_token.user, self.user) | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please also add a test which will ensure that the User.DoesNotExist error is properly handled when the user does not exist anymore?
E.g:
- create the token,
- delete
self.userobject withself.user.delete() - call
token.blacklist() - assert that there is a BlacklistedToken record
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey, sorry I just saw your review just now. I'll get on that.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I've added that test.
|
Hi, When can we expect this to be merged ? |
Regarding changes made at https://github.com/jazzband/djangorestframework-simplejwt/pull/806/files We're using a USER_ID_CLAIM that is neither the primary key field nor is it the same type as the primary key, and these previous changes fail at this point when attempting to create an OutstandingToken, because it assumes that the ID pulled out of the token claims is usable as the database key for a user. So to mitigate this gets the user from the database using the USER_ID_FIELD setting and uses that in the get_or_create call. Also include a test of handling the case where the user is deleted when the token is blacklisted.
cellofellow
force-pushed
the
fix-user-id-type-mismatch
branch
from
834a89d to
49b84ed
Compare
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
vgrozdanic
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2025
This was referenced Feb 26, 2025
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
4 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.
Regarding changes made at https://github.com/jazzband/djangorestframework-simplejwt/pull/806/files
We're using a USER_ID_CLAIM that is neither the primary key field nor is it the
same type as the primary key, (tests are using the email column but we use a
UUID column secondary key) and these previous changes fail at this point when
attempting to create an OutstandingToken, because it assumes that the ID pulled
out of the token claims is usable as the database key for a user.
So to mitigate this gets the user from the database using the USER_ID_FIELD
setting and uses that in the get_or_create call.