In a quarkus app, I'd like to develop my own SecurityIdentity, because existing ones do not fit my need (I need to check identity by getting roles from multiple micro-services). Maybe a custom SecurityIdentity is not the best option, but looking at documentation it seems to be what I need (another option is to define a ContainerRequestFilter implementation but this is at lower level and less integrated).
Is there any way to do it? I tested the following:
#Provider
#PreMatching
class CustomSecurityIdentity: SecurityIdentity {
override fun getPrincipal(): Principal {
....
Then from an endpoint I simply defined:
#GET
#Produces(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
#RolesAllowed("administrator")
#Path("/")
fun checkAuth(): Response {
...
I put some breakpoints everywhere but it never comes through my Identity Provider where the #RolesAllowed should (the way I see it) force it.
Is it possible to make it work?
Related
In Quarkus (resteasy reactive), is there a way to get hold of the "ResourceInfo" in an HTTP Authentication Mechanism?
What I'm trying to do is read an annotation that is defined on the resource class or method, in order to choose an authentication mechanism based on it.
Injecting the ResourceInfo directly in the mechanism class does not work (and also, it is application scoped and not request scoped, so not sure it could work). I also couldn't find the info I need in the RoutingContext parameter.
I have also tried adding a ContainerRequestFilter, in which injecting the ResourceInfo with #Context works well, but I think perhaps the filters are called after the httpAuthenticationMechanism.authenticate(), because it's not called in my test when the endpoint requires authentication.
Is there another way to do this?
----> To clarify with code what I would like to do:
have different JAX-RS resources with a custom #Authorization annotations with different "api names" like this:
#Path("/jwttest")
#ApplicationScoped
#Authorization("jwttest")
public class JWTTestController {
...
}
#Path("/oidctest")
#ApplicationScoped
#Authorization("myoidc")
public class OIDCTestController {
...
}
and then different configs like this:
myframework.auth.jwttest.type=jwt
myframework.auth.jwttest.issuer=123
myframework.auth.jwttest.audience=456
myframework.auth.myoidc.type=oidc
myframework.auth.myoidc.auth-server-url=myurl
And in the HttpAuthenticationMechanism, find the value of #Authorization, and based on it, call another provider like suggested in https://quarkus.io/guides/security-customization#dealing-with-more-than-one-httpauthenticationmechanism with the right api name so that it can load the config.
I'm currently making a library that interacts with a particular API that requires an oAuth OIDC connection/token and I'd like to make something that makes that particular part easier for users of this library so they don't need all this custom code.
What is this currently called and is there an example of code?
I ask because from trying to get this work, the documentation is ALL OVER THE PLACE. It looks like this particular process has undergone significant changes multiple times as things went on from before netcore to netcore2 and now netcore31.
Both AddAuthentication and AddOpenIdConnect are extension methods.
An extension method allows you to "add" methods to a type without having to modify the type directly - the methods aren't actually added to the type, but we can call them as if they had been. This is useful in situations where you'd like to extend the behaviour of a class created by a third party but don't have access to the source code.
As for what the particular pattern in question is, whilst there is no canonical name, it's merely a way of encapsulating the configuration of services and dependencies for your application.
AddAuthentication is an extension method of IServiceCollection, which is services type. AddAuthentication has a return type of AuthenticationBuilder, and AddOpenIdConnect is an extension method for AuthenticationBuilder. This is the implementation of AddOpenIdConnect, but as you're looking to encapsulate the configuration, you could probably do something like this:
public static class OpenIdConnectExtensions
{
public static AuthenticationBuilder ConfigureOpendIdConnect(
this AuthenticationBuilder builder)
{
return builder.AddOpenIdConnect(options =>
{
options.SignInScheme = IdentityConstants.ExternalScheme;
// Do whatever else you need.
});
}
}
And call it as follows:
services
.AddAuthentication()
.ConfigureOpendIdConnect()
Middleware, on the other hand, is code that executes as part of a pipeline in order to process requests and responses. The middleware sits in the middle of receiving requests and sending responses, hence the name. This allows you do things such as always adding certain headers to responses without that logic being split across your application. As you correctly mentioned, you see these being applied via calls such as app.UseXyz().
I have a base abstract context which has a couple hundred shared objects, and then 2 "implementation" contexts which both inherit from the base and are designed to be used by different tenants in a .net core application. A tenant object is injected into the constructor for OnConfiguring to pick up which connection string to use.
public abstract class BaseContext : DbContext
{
protected readonly AppTenant Tenant;
protected BaseContext (AppTenant tenant)
{
Tenant = tenant;
}
}
public TenantOneContext : BaseContext
{
public TenantOneContext(AppTenant tenant)
: base(tenant)
{
}
}
In startup.cs, I register the DbContexts like this:
services.AddDbContext<TenantOneContext>();
services.AddDbContext<TenantTwoContext>();
Then using the autofac container and th Multitenant package, I register tenant specific contexts like this:
IContainer container = builder.Build();
MultitenantContainer mtc = new MultitenantContainer(container.Resolve<ITenantIdentificationStrategy>(), container);
mtc.ConfigureTenant("1", config =>
{
config.RegisterType<TenantOneContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
});
mtc.ConfigureTenant("2", config =>
{
config.RegisterType<TenantTwoContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
});
Startup.ApplicationContainer = mtc;
return new AutofacServiceProvider(mtc);
My service layers are designed around the BaseContext being injected for reuse where possible, and then services which require specific functionality use the TenantContexts.
public BusinessService
{
private readonly BaseContext _baseContext;
public BusinessService(BaseContext context)
{
_baseContext = context;
}
}
In the above service at runtime, I get an exception "No constructors on type 'BaseContext' can be found with the constructor finder 'Autofac.Core.Activators.Reflection.DefaultConstructorFinder'". I'm not sure why this is broken....the AppTenant is definitely created as I can inject it other places successfully. I can make it work if I add an extra registration:
builder.RegisterType<TenantOneContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
I don't understand why the above registration is required for the tenant container registrations to work. This seems broken to me; in structuremap (Saaskit) I was able to do this without adding an extra registration, and I assumed using the built in AddDbContext registrations would take care of creating a default registration for the containers to overwrite. Am I missing something here or is this possibly a bug in the multitenat functionality of autofac?
UPDATE:
Here is fully runable repo of the question: https://github.com/danjohnso/testapp
Why is line 66 of Startup.cs needed if I have lines 53/54 and lines 82-90?
As I expected your problem has nothing to do with multitenancy as such. You've implemented it almost entirely correctly, and you're right, you do not need that additional registration, and, btw, these two (below) too because you register them in tenant's scopes a bit later:
services.AddDbContext<TenantOneContext>();
services.AddDbContext<TenantTwoContext>();
So, you've made only one very small but very important mistake in TenantIdentitifcationStrategy implementation. Let's walk through how you create container - this is mainly for other people who may run into this problem as well. I'll mention only relevant parts.
First, TenantIdentitifcationStrategy gets registered in a container along with other stuff. Since there's no explicit specification of lifetime scope it is registered as InstancePerDependency() by default - but that does not really matter as you'll see. Next, "standard" IContainer gets created by autofac's buider.Build(). Next step in this process is to create MultitenantContainer, which takes an instance of ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy. This means that MultitenantContainer and its captive dependency - ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy - will be singletons regardless of how ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy is registered in container. In your case it gets resolved from that standard "root" container in order to manage its dependencies - well, this is what autofac is for anyways. Everything is fine with this approach in general, but this is where your problem actually begins. When autofac resolves this instance it does exactly what it is expected to do - injects all the dependencies into TenantIdentitifcationStrategy's constructor including IHttpContextAccessor. So, right there in the constructor you grab an instance of IHttpContext from that context accessor and store it for using in tenant resolution process - and this is a fatal mistake: there's no http request at this time, and since TenantIdentitifcationStrategy is a singleton it means that there will not ever be one for it! So, it gets null request context for the whole application lifespan. This effectively means that TenantIdentitifcationStrategy will not be able to resolve tenant identifier based on http requests - because it does not actually analyze them. Consequently, MultitenantContainer will not be able to resolve any tenant-specific services.
Now when the problem is clear, its solution is obvious and trivial - just move fetching of request context context = _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext to TryIdentifyTenant() method. It gets called in the proper context and will be able to access request context and analyze it.
PS. This digging has been highly educational for me since I had absolutely no idea about autofac's multi-tenant concept, so thank you very much for such an interesting question! :)
PPS. And one more thing: this question is just a perfect example of how important well prepared example is. You provided very good example. Without it no one would be able to figure out what the problem is since the most important part of it was not presented in the question - and sometimes you just don't know where this part actually is...
I'm using custom asp.net membership provider with underlaying nhibernate data access code, which is fine. Now I need to exercise these methods using tests.
Anyone interested in suggesting how these methods should be tested? with providing some links explaining test methods using some standars maybe ?
This is my first question so be gentle :)
When it comes to unit testing any code that does something with the database or a 3rd party library you should de-couple these dependencies so that your tests only test your code.
For example, if we have a method in our membership provider for adding a single user, what we want to be testing is that our code for this single method works correctly and not that the database is up and running or that methods called by this method work. Our unit test should still pass even if the database is offline or if method calls on other classes fail.
This is where Mocking comes into play. You'll want to mock out your data context and set up any methods you'll be using on it so that you can control its response.
Look closely at the methods you have in your membership provider. What should each one do? That's the only thing you really want to test. Does this method, as a standalone unit, do the job I'm expecting it to.
Membership providers are pretty difficult to mock and test, so personally I don't bother. What I do however is place all my membership code in classes that are easily testable.
Most of my custom providers look something like this:
public class CustomMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
private readonly IUserService _userService;
public ButlinsMembershipProvider()
{
_userService = DI.Resolve<IUserService>();
}
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
return _userService.Authenticate(username, password);
}
}
In this example, I would write integration tests to verify the behavior of the user service. I don't test the provider.
I'm still pretty new to JEE6 having come from a Servlets + JSP style of development on legacy systems. In the applications I worked on we would just throw objects into the various supplied scopes (request, session and application) keyed on a constant String. For example, the User object that represented the currently logged in user would be in the session scope keyed under "current_user".
I've done the same in our new JEE6 application, when the user logs in the User object is bound into the session scope. I'm wondering though if there is a better, more EE, way of handling this?
The problem I'm having is that now I've got the User stored in the session it's awkward to get access to it again. I can get it via JNDI look up or with a few lines of boiler plate code involving FacesContext but neither are very elegant.
Rather than boiler plate code all over the place (the User object is need in a few places) it would be great if I could just get the object injected into a field or method. After all there can only be one object in the session bound to a particular name so there shouldn't be any ambiguity about what I'm asking for. Is this possible?
Maybe the CDI could be of any help?
Could you define the way you achieve the User object into one, main method?
If so, and you're working with Java EE 6 environment, you could use the Producer method. Something between these lines:
public class ClassWhichCanAccessUserObject {
#Produces
public User produceUser() {
User u = ... // get the user as you do it right now
return u;
}
}
Then in the place you want to use this class you just Inject it (in the field or method) and use it:
public class MyLogic {
#Inject
User u;
}
You need to remember to add the beans.xml file to your classpath, as without the CDI will not work for your module.