feat: add security field at the operation level #505

LokeshRishi · 2022-03-25T21:54:09Z

File	% Stmts	% Branch	% Funcs	% Lines	Uncovered Line #s
All files	95.87	88.33	97.32	98.21
lib	96.29	88.79	99.24	98.85
anonymousNaming.js	100	95.45	100	100	28
asyncapiSchemaFormatParser.js	100	100	100	100
constants.js	100	100	100	100
customValidators.js	99.02	96.97	100	100	45,513,541-545
index.js	100	100	100	100
iterators.js	94.64	88.1	95.65	99.04	243
json-parse.js	95.45	66.67	100	95.45	41
parser.js	97.35	91.07	100	99.02	112
utils.js	91.1	79.38	100	96.75	83-85,94-96
lib/errors	95	91.67	66.67	93.33
parser-error.js	95	91.67	66.67	93.33	60
lib/mixins	100	100	100	100
bindings.js	100	100	100	100
description.js	100	100	100	100
external-docs.js	100	100	100	100
specification-extensions.js	100	100	100	100
tags.js	100	100	100	100
lib/models	95.05	85.78	96.21	97.41
asyncapi.js	95.83	87.1	96.77	96.58	54,274,319,354
base.js	80	75	100	100	11,21
channel-parameter.js	90	50	100	100	30
channel.js	93.55	83.33	100	100	75-83
components.js	100	100	100	100
contact.js	100	100	100	100
correlation-id.js	100	100	100	100
external-docs.js	100	100	100	100
info.js	100	100	100	100
license.js	100	100	100	100
message-trait.js	100	100	100	100
message-traitable.js	92	66.67	100	100	39-47
message.js	93.75	80	100	100	33,48-55
oauth-flow.js	100	100	100	100
operation-security-requirement.js	100	100	100	100
operation-trait.js	100	100	100	100
operation-traitable.js	100	100	100	100
operation.js	80	66.67	88.89	86.36	18-20
publish-operation.js	40	100	0	40	15-29
schema.js	100	96.77	100	100	421,437
security-scheme.js	100	100	100	100
server-security-requirement.js	100	100	100	100
server-variable.js	92.31	50	100	100	30
server.js	94.44	50	100	100	69
subscribe-operation.js	40	100	0	40	15-29
tag.js	100	100	100	100
utils.js	100	100	100	100

Description
We are using AsyncAPI specifications for publishing the subscriber specific details of our topics and associated payloads for our HTTP push use cases.

Our subscribable channels(or topics) are protected by a set of OAuth scopes (authorization code or client credentials) - that a potential subscriber needs to be aware of.

Here is a sample contract.

We are able to accommodate almost every detail of interest to an integrator/subscriber (THANK YOU) - with the exception of being able to call out the oauth scopes necessary for the subscription to the topic - i.e. the security aspect at the channel or rather channel/operation level.

The current specification is perhaps more aligned with a broker based topology - but ours is a pure push use case (to registered webhooks) and we need an ability to call out any security aspects at the channel operation level.

Related issue(s)
#434
asyncapi/spec-json-schemas#189

github-actions

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

fmvilas · 2022-03-29T18:09:02Z

API.md

@@ -265,6 +265,7 @@
            * [.hasTraits()](#module_@asyncapi/parser+Operation+hasTraits) ⇒ <code>boolean</code>
            * [.messages()](#module_@asyncapi/parser+Operation+messages) ⇒ <code>Array.&lt;Message&gt;</code>
            * [.message()](#module_@asyncapi/parser+Operation+message) ⇒ <code>Message</code>
+            * [.OperationSecurityRequirement](#module_@asyncapi/parser+OperationSecurityRequirement) ⇐ <code>Base</code>


🤔 where is this defined?

This doc should be generated automatically iirc.
Indeed OperationSecurityRequirementis not the method you declared, but Security.

Thanks @fmvilas and @smoya
If its generated automatically, would you suggest reverting my changes?

Would you mind trying npm run docs? This command should build the right API doc.

The whole PR is ok, just delete the above and I can accept :)

@smoya @magicmatatjahu I deleted my changes to the API doc and regenerated it using the above command.

smoya · 2022-03-31T17:35:13Z

Thanks for the PR @LokeshRishi! would you mind fixing the title to be compliant with Conventional Commits? You have an error on it. See https://github.com/asyncapi/parser-js/runs/5698773473?check_suite_focus=true

Error: The subject "Add security field at the operation level" found in the pull request title "feat: Add security field at the operation level" should start with a lowercase character.

LokeshRishi · 2022-04-04T21:19:33Z

@smoya @fmvilas Gentle reminder

smoya · 2022-04-05T15:13:33Z

test/models/operation_test.js

+  describe('#security()', function() {
+    it('should return an array of security requirements objects', function() {
+      const d = new Operation(js);
+      expect(Array.isArray(d.security())).to.equal(true);


We need to test that the array is not empty. Otherwise, in the case it is empty, the logic inside the following forEach won't ever be executed.

@smoya Thanks for the review! I have incorporated the suggestion.

smoya · 2022-04-05T15:29:51Z

test/models/operation_test.js

+    it('should return an array of security requirements objects', function() {
+      const d = new Operation(js);
+      expect(Array.isArray(d.security())).to.equal(true);
+      expect(d.security().length > 0).to.equal(true);


Nitpick: I think you can simplify this with the proper Jest function:

Suggested change

expect(d.security().length > 0).to.equal(true);

expect(d.security()).toHaveLength(1);

.toHaveLength(1); was throwing an error, I have update it to .to.have.lengthOf(1)

sonarqubecloud · 2022-04-05T15:36:57Z

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

smoya

LGTM!

smoya · 2022-04-05T15:39:04Z

@magicmatatjahu would you mind aproving workflows? Thanks!

smoya · 2022-04-14T10:14:38Z

/rtm

asyncapi-bot · 2022-04-14T10:20:42Z

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.15.0-2022-04-release.1 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

feat: Add security field at the operation level

aaf0dcb

LokeshRishi requested review from fmvilas, magicmatatjahu, jonaslagoni, derberg and asyncapi-bot-eve as code owners March 25, 2022 21:54

github-actions bot reviewed Mar 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

sekharbans-ebay mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2022

feat: add security at the operation level asyncapi/spec#584

Merged

fmvilas reviewed Mar 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

smoya mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2022

Work on 2.4 release asyncapi/spec#735

Closed

55 tasks

LokeshRishi changed the title ~~feat: Add security field at the operation level~~ feat: add security field at the operation level Mar 31, 2022

fix: regenerated API markdown doc

131d811

smoya reviewed Apr 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

fix: added array size check to operation security test

dbdd2bb

smoya reviewed Apr 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

fix: updated operation test to use appropriate chai method

4f2e05b

smoya approved these changes Apr 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

magicmatatjahu approved these changes Apr 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

asyncapi-bot added the ready-to-merge label Apr 14, 2022

asyncapi-bot merged commit 20b9017 into asyncapi:2022-04-release Apr 14, 2022

asyncapi-bot added the released on @2022-04-release label Apr 14, 2022

WaleedAshraf pushed a commit to WaleedAshraf/parser-js that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2022

feat: add security field at the operation level (asyncapi#505)

bd2ca4e

WaleedAshraf pushed a commit to WaleedAshraf/parser-js that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2022

feat: add security field at the operation level (asyncapi#505)

f308a43

WaleedAshraf pushed a commit to WaleedAshraf/parser-js that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2022

feat: add security field at the operation level (asyncapi#505)

020c14a

magicmatatjahu mentioned this pull request May 16, 2022

Support security field at Operation level #434

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: add security field at the operation level #505

feat: add security field at the operation level #505

LokeshRishi commented Mar 25, 2022

github-actions bot left a comment

fmvilas Mar 29, 2022

smoya Mar 31, 2022

LokeshRishi Mar 31, 2022

smoya Apr 5, 2022

magicmatatjahu Apr 5, 2022

LokeshRishi Apr 5, 2022

smoya commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

LokeshRishi commented Apr 4, 2022

smoya Apr 5, 2022

LokeshRishi Apr 5, 2022

smoya Apr 5, 2022

LokeshRishi Apr 5, 2022

sonarqubecloud bot commented Apr 5, 2022

smoya left a comment

smoya commented Apr 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading

smoya commented Apr 14, 2022

asyncapi-bot commented Apr 14, 2022

	expect(d.security().length > 0).to.equal(true);
	expect(d.security()).toHaveLength(1);

feat: add security field at the operation level #505

feat: add security field at the operation level #505

Conversation

LokeshRishi commented Mar 25, 2022

github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoya commented Mar 31, 2022 • edited Loading

LokeshRishi commented Apr 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sonarqubecloud bot commented Apr 5, 2022

smoya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoya commented Apr 5, 2022 • edited Loading

smoya commented Apr 14, 2022

asyncapi-bot commented Apr 14, 2022

smoya commented Mar 31, 2022 •

edited

Loading

smoya commented Apr 5, 2022 •

edited

Loading