Non-compliant Azure Patch Request on Add operation sends a simple User:manager attribute where scim-sdk (rightly) expects a complex attribute

[rmartinsTGTG]

I've come across an issue with a PATCH request coming in from an MS Azure SCIM client:

A PATCH request is received with this body:

{
    "Operations": [
        {
            "op": "Add",
            "path": "urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:enterprise:2.0:User:manager",
            "value": "271"
        }
    ],
    "schemas": [
        "urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:PatchOp"
    ]
}

which leads to this library correctly rejecting and throwing bad request exception here:
https://github.com/Captain-P-Goldfish/SCIM-SDK/blob/master/scim-sdk-server/src/main/java/de/captaingoldfish/scim/sdk/server/patch/PatchTargetHandler.java#L518

This issue reproduces with a patch config enabled with all the MsAzure workarounds:

        .patchConfig(PatchConfig.builder()
            .supported(true)
            .activateMsAzureWorkaround(true)
            .activateMsAzureValueSubAttributeWorkaround(true)
            .activateSailsPointWorkaround(true)
            .build())

I've also looked at the existing issues, which are similar but not quite the same, and they don't address this particular issue.
#516
#416

My question is:
Would it be possible to implement an additional MS Azure workaround to support this, similar to the others?
activateMsAzureWorkaround activateMsAzureValueSubAttributeWorkaround

The correct request would look like this:

{
    "Operations": [
        {
            "op": "Add",
            "path": "urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:extension:enterprise:2.0:User:manager",
            "value": {
                "value": "271"
            }
        }
    ],
    "schemas": [
        "urn:ietf:params:scim:api:messages:2.0:PatchOp"
    ]
}

The issue from Microsoft side is described in this ticket:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/188003/scim-user-provisioning-setup-with-manager-attribut

but it's dragging for a long time and doesn't look like it's gaining traction for quite some time.

The link to the specification clearly states it's a complex attribute, of course:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7643#section-4.3

[Captain-P-Goldfish]

yes we can do this.

the workaround will be implemented like this:

• if the path points to a complex attribute and the value is a simple value-node the node is wrapped in an object with the value-key-attribute. Just like you showed it in your example.

But I am starting to wonder why microsoft is not fixing their issues...

[rmartinsTGTG]

Nice. Thanks for the quick reply!