feature: Use RegisteredClaims instead of deprecated staruct StandardClaims

[wujunwei]

StandardClaims are Deprecated and may might lead to incompatibilities with other JWT implementations. The use of this is discouraged.
Use RegisteredClaims instead for a forward-compatible way to access registered claims in a struct.
Signed-off-by: wujunwei [email protected]

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[wy65701436]

lgtm

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #16206 (5a42ac1) into main (c2a9f5d) will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 90.90%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16206      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.16%   67.12%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         979      979              
  Lines       81776    81778       +2     
  Branches     2604     2604              
==========================================
- Hits        54922    54890      -32     
- Misses      23103    23137      +34     
  Partials     3751     3751              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	67.12% <90.90%> (-0.05%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/pkg/token/claims/v2/claims.go	66.66% <66.66%> (+6.66%)	⬆️
src/core/service/token/authutils.go	75.67% <100.00%> (ø)
src/pkg/token/claims/robot/robot.go	81.81% <100.00%> (+1.81%)	⬆️
src/controller/event/handler/auditlog/auditlog.go	8.69% <0.00%> (-52.18%)	⬇️
src/lib/cache/helper.go	73.91% <0.00%> (-8.70%)	⬇️
src/controller/event/topic.go	1.80% <0.00%> (-7.21%)	⬇️
src/common/utils/passports.go	84.61% <0.00%> (-5.13%)	⬇️
...es/vulnerability/vulnerability-config.component.ts	54.07% <0.00%> (-4.45%)	⬇️
src/jobservice/worker/cworker/c_worker.go	66.50% <0.00%> (-1.92%)	⬇️

[wy65701436]

@wujunwei could you help to fix the CI failure? Then, I'll merge it.

[zyyw]

@wujunwei Thanks for contributing to Harbor. Could you please rebase the latest main branch into your branch and then force push your branch to this PR?

[wujunwei]

@wujunwei Thanks for contributing to Harbor. Could you please rebase the latest main branch into your branch and then force push your branch to this PR?

I had do that , anything thing I should do ?

[zyyw]

@wujunwei Thanks for your contribution! Could you please rebase latest main branch into your branch again and squash your commits into one. Thanks.

[MinerYang]

Hi @wujunwei ,

Apologize for reaching you late until now and would you like to keep working on this PR?
We would like you to squash the commits into one, thx.

Best,
Miner

[wujunwei]

@MinerYang @zyyw I have squashed my commits into one and force push to this branch , did I do it right?

[wujunwei]

It seems that the CI / APITEST_DB ‘s failure has nothing to do with these commits ?

[MinerYang]

It seems that the CI / APITEST_DB ‘s failure has nothing to do with these commits ?

It failed at notary sign image test and probably due to the token reason. I would look into this first and hold this PR until it's not a broken change.
Thanks for your contribution and let's keep in touch!

Best,
Miner

[wujunwei]

It seems that the CI / APITEST_DB ‘s failure has nothing to do with these commits ?

It failed at notary sign image test and probably due to the token reason. I would look into this first and hold this PR until it's not a broken change. Thanks for your contribution and let's keep in touch!

Best, Miner

I have found why CI / APITEST_DB failed ,and I try to fix it. please have a look. @MinerYang

[wujunwei]

@wujunwei could you help to fix the CI failure? Then, I'll merge it.

I have fixed all the CI failure @wy65701436 : )

[MinerYang]

lgtm