You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on May 31, 2022. It is now read-only.
If the JwtToken is loaded with additional information on the Authorization Server, that information will not make its way into the extracted OAuth2Authentication on the resource server side. Although that information is available in the decoded token and the Map that is passed to the DefaultAccessTokenConverter.extractAuthentication(Map).
When the extract operation is completed, the details field of the OAuth2Authentication is left empty. This field, in my opinion, would the best candidate for storing such information.
/**
* Stores additional details about the authentication request. These might be an IP
* address, certificate serial number etc.
*
* @return additional details about the authentication request, or <code>null</code>
* if not used
*/
Object getDetails();
The workaround would be to decode the raw token value that is stored on the OAuth2Authentication each time that extra information is needed. But this seems to be an extra step that can be avoided.
Is this the intended behavior? Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If the JwtToken is loaded with additional information on the Authorization Server, that information will not make its way into the extracted
OAuth2Authentication
on the resource server side. Although that information is available in the decoded token and the Map that is passed to theDefaultAccessTokenConverter.extractAuthentication(Map)
.When the extract operation is completed, the
details
field of the OAuth2Authentication is left empty. This field, in my opinion, would the best candidate for storing such information.The workaround would be to decode the raw token value that is stored on the OAuth2Authentication each time that extra information is needed. But this seems to be an extra step that can be avoided.
Is this the intended behavior? Thanks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: