Skip to content

Conversation

mjp4
Copy link
Contributor

@mjp4 mjp4 commented Feb 10, 2024

Changes proposed in this pull request:

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

coverage: 94.176% (-0.04%) from 94.214%
when pulling d136300 on mjp4:no-security-option
into 3e64fe4 on spec-first:main.

@RobbeSneyders
Copy link
Member

Thanks @mjp4! Agree that this would be useful, we use a gateway for security as well.

I'm still thinking about the approach though. Another option would be to remove the SecurityMiddleware from the stack. That would prevent us from having to propagate this argument everywhere, but would only work on an App level. Let me think about it and come back.

If we add this option, we should update the documentation example you linked though to prevent confusion.

@Ruwann
Copy link
Member

Ruwann commented May 16, 2024

I would prefer removing the security middleware from the stack so we don't need to pass the information along everywhere. For example, imo the security middleware shouldn't have to parse this option but we should not have the security middleware in the middleware stack as a whole

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants