buzzfeed / sso

sso, aka S.S.Octopus, aka octoboi, is a single sign-on solution for securing internal services
MIT License
3.07k stars 187 forks source link

sso_proxy: document provider slug configs #301

Closed Jusshersmith closed 3 years ago

Jusshersmith commented 3 years ago

Problem

Some documentation for the upstream configuration option provider_slug, and the global sso_proxy DefaultProviderSlug option is missing

Solution

Add in the missing documentation.

codecov[bot] commented 3 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #301 into master will decrease coverage by 0.14%. The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #301      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.98%   61.84%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          57       57              
  Lines        4646     4188     -458     
==========================================
- Hits         2880     2590     -290     
+ Misses       1554     1388     -166     
+ Partials      212      210       -2     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
internal/proxy/options.go 83.59% <ø> (-1.08%) :arrow_down:
internal/auth/http.go 60.00% <0.00%> (-6.67%) :arrow_down:
internal/auth/providers/internal_util.go 55.55% <0.00%> (-4.45%) :arrow_down:
internal/auth/static_files.go 69.23% <0.00%> (-4.11%) :arrow_down:
internal/auth/configuration.go 43.68% <0.00%> (-3.74%) :arrow_down:
internal/pkg/aead/aead.go 62.96% <0.00%> (-3.71%) :arrow_down:
internal/auth/circuit/breaker.go 81.98% <0.00%> (-2.40%) :arrow_down:
internal/pkg/groups/fillcache.go 72.30% <0.00%> (-2.35%) :arrow_down:
internal/proxy/proxy_config.go 76.21% <0.00%> (-2.28%) :arrow_down:
internal/auth/middleware.go 80.43% <0.00%> (-2.26%) :arrow_down:
... and 46 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 3dc9145...d2e1ee5. Read the comment docs.

jphines commented 3 years ago

This is annoying. Do we want to force merge?

Jusshersmith commented 3 years ago

@jphines Actually, I think that might be a good idea. I've tried to dig into why it's suggesting this change in code coverage, but unclear at the moment.

If you're happy with the change, let's force merge 👍