fix: Allow use of relative URLs in config

[chlasch]

This PR reverts to previous behavior and allows relative uri-references for self-service URLS. This functionality matches the current documentation and addresses what seems like a bug that was introduced.

Our specific use case is an on-prem application that does not know it's hostname at deployment, and needs to be accessible by arbitrary DNS names or IP hostnames.

Related issue(s)

#1446

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines.
• I am following the
  contributing code guidelines.
• 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 green light (please contact
  security@ory.sh) 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 or changed the documentation.

Further Comments

I don't believe a documentation change is needed, as this should be working already according to the config examples and schema. eg. /Dashboard

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1754 (b24e9a3) into master (02c9e26) will decrease coverage by 1.19%.
The diff coverage is 88.00%.

❗ Current head b24e9a3 differs from pull request most recent head 2d1d017. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2d1d017 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1754      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.13%   73.93%   -1.20%     
==========================================
  Files         292      260      -32     
  Lines       15125    12715    -2410     
==========================================
- Hits        11364     9401    -1963     
+ Misses       2950     2685     -265     
+ Partials      811      629     -182     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
driver/config/config.go	81.53% <78.57%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
internal/testhelpers/selfservice.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
text/message_system.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
cmd/migrate/sql.go	57.14% <0.00%> (-42.86%)	⬇️
text/message_recovery.go	63.04% <0.00%> (-36.96%)	⬇️
text/message_validation.go	64.70% <0.00%> (-35.30%)	⬇️
cmd/cliclient/migrate.go	0.00% <0.00%> (-34.55%)	⬇️
ui/node/attributes.go	27.58% <0.00%> (-33.29%)	⬇️
text/message_verification.go	67.56% <0.00%> (-32.44%)	⬇️
text/message_login.go	71.69% <0.00%> (-28.31%)	⬇️
... and 117 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 034806f...2d1d017. Read the comment docs.

[zepatrik]

To prevent regression of this bug (again 😅), it would be good to add a case to one of the handlers that ensures it actually does a relative redirect when configured to do so.
Ideally even in all flow handlers like https://github.com/ory/kratos/blob/43c315022f05206f1ab0db82b3c98b3fd333921d/selfservice/flow/login/handler_test.go
https://github.com/ory/kratos/blob/43c315022f05206f1ab0db82b3c98b3fd333921d/selfservice/flow/registration/handler_test.go
and the others.

[aeneasr]

Awesome, thank you for your contribution! This looks pretty good and I have some ideas how to improve it further :)

[chlasch]

To prevent regression of this bug (again 😅), it would be good to add a case to one of the handlers that ensures it actually does a relative redirect when configured to do so.
Ideally even in all flow handlers like https://github.com/ory/kratos/blob/43c315022f05206f1ab0db82b3c98b3fd333921d/selfservice/flow/login/handler_test.go
https://github.com/ory/kratos/blob/43c315022f05206f1ab0db82b3c98b3fd333921d/selfservice/flow/registration/handler_test.go
and the others.

I added an explicit redirect check to the 3 handler tests that already had TestInitFLow functions (login, recovery, registration). I opted for a testhelper function to check the redirect, instead of duplicating the test function in each handler_test, but I'm not sure if this is how you want it done.

[zepatrik]

Thanks a lot, this looks very good now 🎉

[zepatrik]

Perfect 👍

[aeneasr]

Great work! :)

Could you add tests for the remaining (verification, settings, error) flows also please? :)

That ensures that this never unintentionally breaks - so it’s like an insurance for you :)

[chlasch]

Great work! :)

Could you add tests for the remaining (verification, settings, error) flows also please? :)

That ensures that this never unintentionally breaks - so it’s like an insurance for you :)

I can give it a shot, but since those flows don't have the TestInitFlow functions, I got a little stuck in understanding where it should fall within the test.

[aeneasr]

Oh I see! If you have difficulties figuring it out feel free to ask here :)

[aeneasr]

While the PR is being worked on I will mark it as a draft. That declutters our review backlog :)

Once you're done with your changes and would like someone to review them, mark the PR as ready and request a review from one of the maintainers.

Thank you!

[aeneasr]

Great job, thank you! :)

[aeneasr]

Re-running tests