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
Our current code is treating cookie key authentication as if it is a header key authentication with the specific header name.
This is incorrect.
Proposal: since we could identify the type of authentication (including which kind of api key auth) from the output of TCGC, we should be able to report a diagnostic from the emitter and treat it as if there is no auth.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@ArcturusZhang is your suggestion to handle this in the emitter as opposed to the generator? i.e. the emitter filters out the cookie header key from the authentication model?
I think this is a thing that we must do in the emitter.
Our emitter is translating output from TCGC into ours, and TCGC already did this for us, they have this type defined as auth type:
We only support part of them in our emitter: ApiKeyAuth and Oauth2Auth.
The implementation in our MGC code always assume ApiKeyAuth is header, but actually the information from TCGC has a ApiKeyLocation and it could be header, query or cookie.
Related code here:
Our current code is treating
cookie
key authentication as if it is aheader
key authentication with the specific header name.This is incorrect.
Proposal: since we could identify the type of authentication (including which kind of api key auth) from the output of TCGC, we should be able to report a diagnostic from the emitter and treat it as if there is no auth.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: