This is the same as the `AzureAD` plugin except:
1. It uses tenant-specific `microsoftonline.com` v2 OAuth2 endpoints
(hence the name), which means accepting a new Tenant Id argument
2. It uses a space instead of `,` as the scopes separator
Users of multi-tenant apps can provide a Tenant Id of `"common"`. I'm
also not certain if the space-vs-comma scopes separator represents a bug
in the `AzureAD` plugin, or just a difference in the actual v2 APIs.
This inherits the behavior of using email address as the `credIdent`
although this is definitely an `id` field in the User Response. I'm not
sure if there are trade-offs one way or another. Using `id` could mean
transparently handling Azure users changing their email, but I suspect
your identity is implicitly tied to email within Azure anyway, so that
would not be a case we'll ever see.
In the future, we can deprecate the `AzureAD` plugin and suggest users
migrate to this one.
LTS-19 and GHC-9.2 is coming. Adding this to ensure we can compile,
which seems to be the case.
We are only disabled in Stackage because hoauth2 is not ready, for which
I've opened: https://github.com/freizl/hoauth2/issues/142
This required a lot of CPP refactoring and extension. I plan to shift
our lower bound and target only the newer hoauth2 soon, but I'd like to
get out a compatible version first, which this aims to do.
The comments in Compat.hs try to explain the gymnastics we have to
endure to get there. I'm sorry, it's not ideal.
This supports the lowest LTS we test with. This was working before
because the bound was only set on publish and not in source, with it in
source it needs to work for all our tested LTSs.
It seems future resolvers will actually use a lower version of this
package (0.6.4.x) than current LTS (0.6.5.x) for some reason, so using
--pvp-bounds=lower on release is too restrictive for (e.g.) nightly.
Our latest version (0.7.0.0) has had this bound relaxed by revision.
This commit just aligns main and need not be released.
The new major version improves the naming of the fields of the OAuth2
record type. This type is central to this library and we leak it freely.
Users who make their own plugins are expected to construct values of
this type to pass into our functions, this makes the new version
disruptive to our code and our users'.
We have two options:
1. Update and release our own new major version
The major downside is that the current LTS resolver will then not
update beyond our currently-released version. We have no immediate
plans for new features in this library, but if we have bugs reported
to be fixed we would either have to manage a complex backporting or
ask our Stack users to wait for the next major LTS, which has
historically been many months.
Users who wish to use our new version would need to also bring in
hoauth2, and who knows what else.
2. Release a fully-compatible update
As mentioned, we leak OAuth2(..) through this library's interface. In
order to be truly backwards-compatible, we would have to use CCP to
define an "old style" OAuth2 and use that throughout, such that
in-the-wild OAuth2 values continue to work as-is.
This would not be a good long-term solution as it introduces a fair
amount of naming confusion and will lead to import conflicts for any
users who also import hoauth2-2.0 modules in the same project.
3. Release a mostly-compatible update
This is the path this commit explores. We can update our own code to
be hoauth2-2.0 compatible and use CPP to define the hoauth2-2.0-like
OAuth2 if we're still on hoauth2-1.x.
This gets us compiling in either case and "forward functional", with
the exception of users who define their own plugins (which is rare).
Because of that use-case, this should technically be a major version
bump for ourselves (though I'm open to the argument we could treat
the local-provider use-case differently), however it is still better
than Option 1 in a few ways:
- We still compile with hoauth2-1.x, so can be brought in easily as
an isolated extra-dep
- If there is a reported bug that we decide to only fix in the newer
versions, the path for the user is better: they can pull us as an
extra-dep and likely need no changes. Even if they're doing a
custom plugin, the required changes are minor
