Make @Claim injection work when using OIDC #5053
Conversation
| return new FeatureBuildItem(FeatureBuildItem.OIDC); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @BuildStep |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is using capabilities to do this preferable to a common extension that they both depend on?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding a new module for 3 lines of code seems like overkill.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's mostly about whether it's intuitive for those coming along later that if there are additional beans that need to be added for JWT in the SmallRye JWT extension, that it also needs to be added to this code block
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kenfinnigan Hi Ken it is a good point. We have an issue to link the OIDC with the quarkus-smallrye-jwt (in which case this block would be redundant), but I'm not sure yet if a link between these 2 modules is needed or not, and may be just having smalrye-jwt being the shared library is the right way to go with some small duplication as in this build step.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@stuartwdouglas FYI, there is CDI code directly in quarkus-smallrye-jwt required to have some more MP JWT injection working - but I'm going to work on abstracting as much as possible from the code to smallrye-jwt
5 participants
No description provided.