Created by: Jonas1893
Summary
This adds the ability to easily distinguish between endpoints that should be requested authenticated and those that should be requested unauthenticated.
Motivation
Currently the intended way of authentication according to the FAQs is to implement a custom RequestBuilder
overriding execute
(URLSession) or to inject a custom RequestInterceptor
(AF library). The drawback here is that the information from the swagger spec (via the security
scheme annotation), whether an endpoint needs to be requested authenticated or not is not available anymore at this level in the code. There were discussion on how to handle this properly but without definite outcome. Currently, it is necessary to maintain a whitelist of requests that need to be requested (un-)authenticated in the app logic.
Changes in this PR
This PR adds two new request builder variations for authenticated requests and calls the appropriate factory method according to the presence of a security annotation in the spec. For endpoint that are intended to be requested authenticated the *authenticated Builder will be used and vice versa. This is a breaking change for people that are already using the request builders, however adoption should be very fast.
Other effects
- The FAQs and linked sample codes would need to be adopted as well
PR checklist
-
Read the contribution guidelines. -
Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community. -
Run the following to build the project and update samples: ./mvnw clean package ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh
./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*
. For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH. -
File the PR against the correct branch: master
(6.1.0) (minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks),7.0.x
(breaking changes without fallbacks) -
If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request. -> @4brunu
Declaration
The program was tested solely for our own use cases, which might differ from yours.