Merged
Conversation
d3251d3 to
9f4501f
Compare
6e39e43 to
a6beeb2
Compare
a6beeb2 to
fa69177
Compare
ernado
approved these changes
Sep 18, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Addresses a FIXME (in parse_security.go) about a too strict authentication schemes enum validation.
This PR introduces a new configuration field,
authentication_schemes, used to configure allowed authentication schemes.By default, the ones defined in https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes/http-authschemes.xhtml are considered.
In addition, a security type is generated for custom securities, making it possible to access the Roles defined in the specification from custom security implementations (which is especially useful with non-standard authentication schemes).
Breaking change
This PR introduces a breaking change in the generated
SecurityHandlersignature for custom securities:I think this change is worth it, because it has little impact (
req=>t.Request), and facilitates future extensions for custom securities.