1.0 Roadmap

[Ch4s3]

I'm starting this issue to discuss our path to a 1.0 release. Please feel free to request features here and discuss areas that need improvement or bug fixes.

• OAuth / Provider test mocking (see omniauth mocking)
  • Fake successful auth call for any provider
  • Fake unsuccessful auth call for any provider
• Additional Providers for External
  • Live Connect (Windows LiveID Replacement)
  • Flickr (saw an open pull request for this one)
  • Yahoo
• Token auth Token authentication #70
• Support usage of multiple authentications for a single user (not sure if this is already implemented)
• Support accounts without passwords (strictly external auth)
• Contribution guide?

[joshbuker]

Some things that come to mind:

Edit: @Ch4s3 added everything to the main post.

[iwada]

Was #70 implemented? Should make it into 1.0

[Ch4s3]

@iwada no, #70 hasn't been implemented yet. But it's on the list.

[pbougie]

I'd like to be able to easily create custom submodules for specific cases (or override the existing ones because I need special functionality). Make them more like a plugin. You could even extract the current submodules into separate gems. Would keep core smaller and easier to maintain. Would also allow for different maintainers for the extracted submodules.

Probably be smart to extract external providers and ORMs in the same way.

[Ch4s3]

@pbougie We've talked about extracting things into gems.

[joshbuker]

Deprecating rails 3/ruby 1.9 and adding support for rails 5 might be of note? (Good thing to add to the README at least.)

[rubenmoya]

What about this issue? #24

[Ch4s3]

@rubenmoya I'm not sure multiple models being able to authenticate is especially in keeping with the spirit of the gem. Perhaps I'm missing something?

[toshimaru]

I'm wondering if Sorcery project would be moved to organization to make collaboration easy.

[Ch4s3]

@toshimaru Yeah, that's on the list as well. Ideally at some point soon we will move to Sorcery/sorcery or similar and add several people as maintainers. Presently we're waiting on @NoamB.

[IvanShamatov]

@Ch4s3 how about extracting providers-strategies out of Sorcery. Each provider has some hardcoded configuration which can change from time to time, and whole gem have to be updated for the reason of some 3rd party provider changed url. If community agree with this I can make an issue for that and make some experiments on implementing it

[Ch4s3]

@IvanShamatov I expect it to be a lot of work. That said, I think it's the right path forward. If you're willing to start on it then I'll pitch in.

[IvanShamatov]

@Ch4s3 I'll do my best, if you take a look at that thread #533 — there are some points on making sorcery work with omniauth and all its already built strategies.

[Ch4s3]

Yeah @IvanShamatov I think Omniauth as discussed in #533 is a good route.

[joshbuker]

Great news! Thanks to the generosity of Github and whoever originally registered the name, I've managed to create a Sorcery organization. I've invited all the maintainers that I'm aware of to the organization, @arnvald, @Ch4s3, please let me know how we'd like to proceed.

Sorcery/sorcery, here we come. :)

[joshbuker]

@NoamB, I've invited you as an Owner to the new Sorcery organization.

[Ch4s3]

@athix I'd love to move over to a Sorcery org. The main roadblock is making sure we transition correctly on Rubygems and do everything with @NoamB's input and permission. Is that accurate @arnvald?

[joshbuker]

@Ch4s3, @arnvald, Seeing as a complete refactor seems pretty likely (break modules into multiple gems, use Omniauth strategies for external, etc), what if we set the current work to release towards 0.10.0 instead of 1.0.0, and let 1.0.0 be the first release of the refactored code? It would also help emphasize that the current work (updating to Rails 5, deprecating Rails 3, etc) is breaking changes, but not major changes.

EDIT: This suggestion might not follow Semantic Versioning, depending on if deprecating rails 3/ruby 1.9 is considered a breaking change.

[arnvald]

Hey, I like the idea of moving to new organization. @athix thanks for helping with getting the Sorcery name for organization. We'd need to move anyway, because only Noam has access to grant permissions to Github repo and I didn't get any answer from him.

However, I could grant access to rubygems.org, so @Ch4s3 now you can push gem there.

The next step would be to go through all the issues and PRs and move the relevant ones to new organization. Later I'll update the repo readme with the link to new address

[joshbuker]

@arnvald, @Ch4s3: I copied over the existing Repo to Sorcery/sorcery, so we should be able to start making the transition. Let me know if I need to resend any of the org invites, once you accept you should have full access to everything.

[Ch4s3]

Ok, I'm set up. I'm traveling at the moment, but I'll do some work soon.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:40 PM Josh Buker [email protected] wrote:

@arnvald https://github.com/arnvald, @Ch4s3 https://github.com/Ch4s3:
I copied over the existing Repo to Sorcery/sorcery, so we should be able to
start making the transition. Let me know if I need to resend any of the org
invites, once you accept you should have full access to everything.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#787 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2n9HkGRsay0t_DV5KfOxsID8BHSsG7ks5qqxrVgaJpZM4JQyYm
.

[IvanShamatov]

I'm following you, guys.

[Ch4s3]

@IvanShamatov find us on the new org repo Sorcery/sorcery#32

[jrochkind]

at this point, should we figure a 1.0 is probably not coming anytime soon?

[joshbuker]

@jrochkind Honestly, unless there's a build-up of momentum that seems fairly likely. I (and I assume @Ch4s3 as well) have a lot of other projects to work on that personally feel higher priority. If there's any specific features that you need merged in however, I'd be more than happy to help on a PR.