Fix: Add front channel grant flow details to RAR documentation for all affected versions (Product IS issue #26020) #5697
Conversation
…l affected versions (product-is#26020)
|
wso2-engineering-bot seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account. You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it. |
WalkthroughThis PR adds a "Sample authorization code grant flow" section to the rich authorization requests guide, providing step-by-step authorize/token examples and JSON Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md (1)
3-3: Fix trailing spaces to pass markdown lint.Line 3 contains trailing whitespace that violates the MD009 rule (expected 0 or 2 spaces; actual: 1).
-Rich Authorization Requests (RAR) ([RFC 9396](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9396){:target="_blank"}) enhance authorization mechanisms by allowing clients to specify fine-grained authorization details in a structured format. +Rich Authorization Requests (RAR) ([RFC 9396](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9396){:target="_blank"}) enhance authorization mechanisms by allowing clients to specify fine-grained authorization details in a structured format.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Markdown Lint
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md
[error] 3-3: markdownlint: MD009/no-trailing-spaces Trailing spaces [Expected: 0 or 2; Actual: 1]. Step: markdownlint-cli2-action@v20.
🪛 Gitleaks (8.28.0)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md
[high] 367-367: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
[high] 368-368: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
- GitHub Check: broken-link-checker
- GitHub Check: Vale style check
🔇 Additional comments (2)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md (2)
326-394: Verify no content duplication in the diff.The AI-generated summary indicates the "Sample authorization code grant flow" section appears twice with identical content, but the provided annotated code shows only a single instance (lines 326-394). Please confirm whether the diff contains duplication. If duplication exists, remove one instance to avoid redundancy.
326-394: New authorization code grant section is well-structured and complete.The new "Sample authorization code grant flow" section effectively documents the front-channel flow with clear step-by-step guidance, comprehensive examples for both authorize and token endpoints, and proper integration with existing content. The formatting, markdown structure, and adherence to Microsoft Style Guide are all appropriate for the documentation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gitleaks flagged sample tokens—document as placeholders.
Gitleaks detected lines 367–368 as Generic API Keys. These are placeholder tokens in documentation examples, not secrets. However, to prevent confusion and reinforce that these are sample values, consider adding a brief comment before the JSON block indicating these are example/placeholder tokens.
Example improvement:
=== "Sample response (/token)"
+
+ <!-- Example response with placeholder tokens -->
```jsonAlternatively, use more explicit placeholder markers in the sample values themselves (e.g., <sample-access-token> as inline comments near the JSON block).
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.28.0)
[high] 367-367: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
[high] 368-368: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md around lines
365 to 391, the JSON sample contains realistic-looking tokens that triggered
Gitleaks; update the documentation to clearly mark these values as non-sensitive
placeholders by either adding a one-line comment immediately above the code
block stating "Example values — do not use in production" (or similar), and/or
replace the access_token and refresh_token values with explicit placeholder
strings like "<sample-access-token>" and "<sample-refresh-token>" so the example
cannot be misinterpreted as real credentials.
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Shan Chathusanda Jayathilaka <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.30.0)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md
[high] 367-367: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
[high] 368-368: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md (1)
326-394: Verify section duplication claimed in AI summary.The AI-generated summary states the "Sample authorization code grant flow" section appears duplicated twice in the diff, but the provided code excerpt shows only one instance (lines 326–394).
Please confirm whether:
- The duplication actually exists in the full diff, or
- This is a summary generation artifact
If duplication does exist, retain only one instance and remove the duplicate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clarify that sample tokens are placeholders—address Gitleaks warnings.
Gitleaks flags the sample tokens on lines 367–368 (a1b2c3d4-e5f6-7890-g1h2-i3j4k5l6m7n8 and z9y8x7w6-v5u4-t3s2-r1q0-p9o8n7m6l5k4) as Generic API Keys. Although these are clearly documentation examples, adding a brief clarifying comment will prevent confusion and reinforce that these are non-sensitive placeholder values.
Apply this diff to add a clarifying comment:
=== "Sample response (/token)"
+
+ <!-- Example response with placeholder tokens -->
```jsonAlternatively, use more explicit placeholder markers in the token values themselves (e.g., <sample-access-token>), though the comment approach is less disruptive to readability.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.30.0)
[high] 367-367: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
[high] 368-368: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md around lines
365–391: the example JSON contains realistic-looking tokens that trigger
Gitleaks; add a brief clarifying note immediately above the fenced JSON (or
replace the token strings with explicit placeholders like
"<sample-access-token>" and "<sample-refresh-token>") stating these values are
non-sensitive dummy placeholders for documentation only, so readers and scanners
know they are not real secrets; ensure the comment is short, non-technical, and
preserves the existing JSON formatting.
This PR was automatically generated by Claude AI.
Changes Made:
Technical Details:
en/includes/guides/authorization/rich-authorization-requests.md(common include file)Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.