Embed default provider at compile time

[tlvenn]

Right now, google is the default provider set in the code unless told otherwise with a cli flag. Just like we can embed credentials at compile time, it would be great to be able to set the default provider as well.

[dkerwin]

Hi @tlvenn! Is this issue still something you would want to have after #30 is merged?

[dkerwin]

Now that each provider has its own sub command I close this issue. Please reopen if you think this feature is still worth implementing. Thanks!

[tlvenn]

Hi @dkerwin, i think it's important when you have to provide a custom build, for example in the case of dex integration.

Whenever you provide a custom build to your end users, you should be able to alter the default provider so the cli command is as simple as possible. Right now it forces me to alter the code which is relatively trivial but would prefer to have a declarative approach.

[dkerwin]

Hi @tlvenn!

I understand your point. How would that look like now that providers are split into individual sub commands? Have a new subcommand (eg. default) that is just a wrapper around the compile time configured provider?

[tlvenn]

Hi @dkerwin,

I though google was still implicit ? If there is no implicit provider anymore, I think having some kind of fallback would be great, I don't really expect that dexter auth default could work but dexter auth could / should fallback to a predefined provider that can be changed at compile time.

[phidlipus]

It would be great if we can set the default provider during the compile time and still use simpler form of command dexter auth instead of new form dexter auth google.

[tlvenn]

@Filip-Havlicek my though exactly

[dkerwin]

The problem I see here is that auth would show unpredictable behaviour. If a provider is predefined, it would run that and if not it would just show the help screen. Wouldn't it be exactly as helpful to have a new command (eg. default, builtin, xxx)? Is the driver for the both of you to give your users a consistent experience even if you decide to switch providers?

[tlvenn]

I think it's more about trying to keep it as simple / stupid as possible for end users.
If a given org is only going to use a single provider at a time, why should it forces its users to specify it all the time, it should be transparent / invisible.

Maybe the official release of dexter should not favor one provider over another so effectively there is no fallback defined and the provider has to be explicit. And for custom build being released by orgs, they can define the fallback provider at compile time so that it's invisible to their users if they want to.

It's the same reasoning for the a potential Dex integration and its endpoint which is by nature custom. I would rather tell people in my org to do: dexter auth rather than dexter auth dex https://dex.mycompany.com

Of course the tradeoff being that now someone needs to build and distribute a custom build. Some orgs might choose the simpler approach on leveraging the official distribution and pushing the concern of oidc provider and its endpoint to their users and some org will choose the other path but I believe both should exist and be facilitated without forcing people to create a fork of the project and to maintain it.

[phidlipus]

We are only using google, so we don't need other providers (at the moment). I understand why you reworked provider code. I just liked old behaviour when I simply wrote dexter auth.
New additional command for default provider doesn't make sense (for me). In that case, it's not problem use the real provider name (google in my case).
By the way, I like dexter and thanks for it.

[dkerwin]

Thank you both for the clarifications. I'll have a closer look at the problem see if I can come up with a good solution. I'm glad dexter is helpful to you @Filip-Havlicek

[dkerwin]

Hey @tlvenn & @Filip-Havlicek,

would be great if you could give the PR a spin and see if it matches your expectations.

[phidlipus]

@dkerwin I built it and it works as expected and it matches my expectations. You are fast.

[tlvenn]

Awesome, that's perfect, thanks @dkerwin !