Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow overriding AcsCommand handling #1130

Open
jnivala opened this issue Dec 3, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

Allow overriding AcsCommand handling #1130

jnivala opened this issue Dec 3, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@jnivala
Copy link

jnivala commented Dec 3, 2019

Hi all,

I am using Sustainsys.Saml2.AspNetCore2 with IdentityServer v4. I had to handle Saml2Responses whose Status != Saml2StatusCode.Success. Our Idp generates those when user cancels logon.

To achieve the result, I implemented a customized Saml2Handler. As Saml2Handler.HandleRequestAsync is not virtual, I could not override it. Instead I had to wrap original Saml2Handler inside my custom implementation.
=> It would be nice if Saml2Handler.HandleRequestAsync was virtual.

Even cooler would be if the library would allow resolving CommandFactory as service. In case no service existed, then the library would use default implementation. IdentityServer uses this pattern to allow injecting e.g. your own IProfileService and IClaimsService.

Then there is some helper code that would be useful as public. E.g. HttpRequestExtensions and CommandResultExtensions.

Regards.

@jnivala
Copy link
Author

jnivala commented Dec 7, 2019

Hi again,

I added PR 1131 that contains the mentioned changes. I look forward for maintainers to review the PR.

Regards,
Janne

@AndersAbel AndersAbel added this to the v3.0.0 Flexibility milestone Mar 17, 2020
@AndersAbel
Copy link
Member

As commented on the PR, this is not something that will be implemented in the 2.X branch. There are plans for a 3.X version that is Asp.NET Core only and would be integrated with the DI system.

@rpmansion
Copy link
Contributor

@AndersAbel any specific date for your 3.X version plans?

@AndersAbel
Copy link
Member

My intention is that the upcoming 2.5.0 should be the last 2.X feature release and that work will then commence with the new on. But it depends both on how much time I can set aside and if I get any more contributors helping out with the work.

@rpmansion
Copy link
Contributor

@AndersAbel I can use some free time to help :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants