Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: ability to map custom claims #338

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

OskarsPakers
Copy link

@OskarsPakers OskarsPakers commented May 31, 2024

Ability to specify additional claims to be mapped to id_token for hydra.

  • I have read the contributing guidelines and signed the CLA.
  • I have referenced an issue containing the design document if my change introduces a new feature.
  • I have read the security policy.
  • I confirm that this pull request does not address a security vulnerability.
    If this pull request addresses a security vulnerability,
    I confirm that I got approval (please contact [email protected]) from the maintainers to push the changes.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
  • I have added the necessary documentation within the code base (if appropriate).

@OskarsPakers OskarsPakers changed the title Ability to map custom claims feat: Ability to map custom claims May 31, 2024
@OskarsPakers OskarsPakers changed the title feat: Ability to map custom claims feat: ability to map custom claims May 31, 2024
Copy link
Member

@aeneasr aeneasr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the contribution! Unfortunately this probably isn't a medium term solution, because the most important part when forwarding the traits is also checking the scope. For example, if the user allows scope phone then we can include the phone number - otherwise we can't.

Therefore this needs a lot of thought to be designed well. We'll probably come up with a solution in Ory Network at some point.

Since this repository really is more an example implementation, I think it's ok if people write their own logic matching their requirements here instead of trying to provide a generalized solution.

@aeneasr aeneasr closed this Jul 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants