Added support for inclusive namespaces

[bluemango]

I working on getting the ruby-saml gem to play nicely with Salesforce. Salesforce SAML assertions use inclusive namespaces so I had to add support to the canonix gem for this. I have included inclusive namespace support as well as some additional tests for verify the update.

Thanks,
Greg DeVore

[brendon]

Hi Greg, thanks for the info. I agree, I find this whole SAML thing a huge drama for something so simple! The mere fact that ruby support is so underdeveloped speaks volumes as to its adoption in the trendier real world!

I just had a look back at the code and that mention of @inclusive_namespaces in canonicalize_element is only invoked if @prefix_list is not false. I've traced @prefix_list through the whole script and it is initialised as nil, and never gets changed or used, so I guess it's safe to remove both references to @inclusive_namespaces and @prefix_list. Would you be happy to do that? Definitely have a doublecheck also just in case I've missed something big :)

[brendon]

You're right regarding the relevance fork, but it would still pay to double check it before you reinvent the wheel just in case :) I'll give the guy a message and see where he's at with prepping the code to be pushed up to master :)

[bluemango]

Brendon -

I went through and removed the old code and pushed. Let me know if you need anything else.

Greg

On Jun 29, 2011, at 7:52 PM, brendon wrote:

Hi Greg, thanks for the info. I agree, I find this whole SAML thing a huge drama for something so simple! The mere fact that ruby support is so underdeveloped speaks volumes as to its adoption in the trendier real world!

I just had a look back at the code and that mention of @inclusive_namespaces in canonicalize_element is only invoked if @prefix_list is not false. I've traced @prefix_list through the whole script and it is initialised as nil, and never gets changed or used, so I guess it's safe to remove both references to @inclusive_namespaces and @prefix_list. Would you be happy to do that? Definitely have a doublecheck also just in case I've missed something big :)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#1 (comment)

[brendon]

Hi Greg, thanks for that. I just meant for you to remove lines 111, 112 and 134. I'm pretty sure that no one currently uses the canonicalize_element function, but just incase someone decides to drop their usage of xmlcanonicalizer in favour of this gem, I'd prefer to keep the functionality just in case. I'll just accept this commit and revert those changes for you :D

Thanks heaps for your help! :D

Brendon