This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 3, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 843
'scope' in SigninResponse #140
Comments
Yes, you're right. Perhaps the logic should key off the presence/absence of the id_token in the response. Mind testing with this change to
|
henetiriki
changed the title
[Question] 'scope' in SigninResponse
'scope' in SigninResponse
Oct 11, 2016
This works well. Would it hurt to have both?
I'll get a PR ready. |
hmm, yea, i guess. i'd have to think about it. |
merged, thanks. |
1.2.1-beta.1 pushed to npm. please test and let me know. thanks. |
Will do, thanks. |
Confirmed that it's working 👍 |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Hi Brock
I've been spending some time trying to understand why user claims were not being processed upon login/silent login.
I found that ResponseValidator#response.isOpenIdConnect is returning false. Tracing it back further, it appears that there is no scope parameter sent back as part of the redirect callback hash from the OP..
If I intercept SigninResponse and add scope=openid to the URL before parsing it (UrlUtility.parseUrlFragment), claims are processed as expected.
Am I missing something or should there be another way of ensuring that claims are being processed. It appears that the spec does not require this param to be sent back.
My workaround is to call the user endpoint myself using the access_token from the User, but would be great to be able to skip this step.
Thanks :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: