[identity] Migrate regional authority support to MSALClient #29413
Conversation
This file contains 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
maorleger
requested review from
KarishmaGhiya,
schaabs and
a team
as code owners
maorleger
requested review from
joshfree,
billwert,
ahsonkhan,
mpodwysocki and
xiangyan99
KarishmaGhiya
approved these changes
Apr 23, 2024
|
API change check API changes are not detected in this pull request. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Packages impacted by this PR
@azure/identity
Issues associated with this PR
Resolves #29066
Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR
ClientSecretCredential, ClientCertificateCredential, and ClientAssertionCredential are the only three
that support the AZURE_REGIONAL_AUTHORITY_NAME today via the msalNodeCommon flow.
Just for feature parity I am adding this to the same 3 credentials that
supported it before, and no other ones. I'll create an issue to investigate
whether we can remove the support entirely.
What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR chosen?
not port it over, and see if anyone cares. If they do it's easy to fix and
they would only be 1p teams