Hi Marcus, Yes, I think that is a good idea.
Regarding the configuration: I think we still want to be able to login to Google via either/both Custos and PSA, is that still the case? if so, I think your previous configuration would make more sense where you had "<provider name="Google" implementation="Custos">" specifying the IdP name and the implementation that interfaces that IdP. Best, _____________ *Vahid Jalili, *Ph.D. Computational Biologist Computational Biology Institute Oregon Health and Science University 2730 SW Moody Ave, KCRB #3103.20, OHSU-RLSB Dock 61, Portland, OR, USA 97201 Skype ID: v.jalili On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:50 AM Christie, Marcus Aaron <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vahid, > > On Feb 28, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Vahid Jalili <[email protected]> wrote: > > We did not discuss the naming, "oidc" vs "keycloak" or "custos". Shall we > postpone it to Tuesday or prefer to follow in this thread? > > > Based on our discussion I think it makes sense to use more specific naming > and use "custos". Specifically I propose: > > - in config/oidc_backends_config.xml the name of the backend is "Custos". > Implementation would be "Custos" as well although with this approach > perhaps the backend of "Custos" could imply the appropriate implementation > (likewise, backend of "Google" would imply the PSA implementation). > Configuration would be simplified to: > > <provider name="Custos"> > <client_id>...</client_id> > <client_secret>...</client_secret> > <redirect_uri> > http://localhost:8000/authnz/custos/callback</redirect_uri> > <realm>...</realm> > </provider> > > - IdentityProvider implementation would be called CustosAuthnz > in lib/galaxy/authnz/custos_authnz.py > > - model/database table oidc_token would be renamed to custos_authnz_token > > Thoughts? > > > Thanks, > > Marcus >
