feat(webauthn): include new credential flags func #337
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new utility function Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
webauthn/credential.go (1)
38-49: Well-designed utility function with forward compatibility!The function is well-documented and follows good design principles by:
- Centralizing flag conversion logic
- Preserving raw flags for future W3C specification changes
- Enabling backward compatibility through flag restoration
The approach of storing raw flags alongside parsed values is a robust pattern for handling evolving specifications. This design allows for:
- Future flag additions without breaking changes
- Runtime recomputation of derived fields
- Validation against original values
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
webauthn/credential.go(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
webauthn/credential.go (2)
64-66: Good addition of Raw field maintaining backward compatibility
The Raw field is properly added with JSON serialization support and clear documentation.
94-94: Good refactor using the new utility function
The change improves maintainability by centralizing flag handling logic in NewCredentialFlags.
Let's verify this is the only place where credential flags are initialized:
✅ Verification successful
Refactoring is correctly implemented and isolated
The verification confirms that:
NewCredentialFlagsis the only place whereCredentialFlagsstruct is initialized- The struct is used appropriately as a field type and in the utility function
- No other direct initializations of
CredentialFlagsexist in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for direct CredentialFlags struct initialization
ast-grep --pattern 'CredentialFlags{$$$}'
# Search for other potential uses of the flags
rg "CredentialFlags" -A 3
Length of output: 2021
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-protocol-values
branch
from
82a85b9 to
00e78c9
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
README.md (3)
318-322: Consider rephrasing for clarity and concisenessThe explanation about flag storage evolution could be more direct. Consider this revision:
-It's important to note that the recommendations and requirements for flag storage have changed over the course of the -evolution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like this available for -easy storage however we also make the Protocol Value available. At such a time as these recommendations or requirements -change we will adapt accordingly. The Protocol Value is a raw representation of the flags and as such is resistant to -breaking changes whereas the other flags or lack thereof may not be. +The WebAuthn specification's recommendations for flag storage have evolved over time. While we currently expose specific +flag classifications for easy storage, we also provide access to the Protocol Value - a raw representation of the flags +that's resistant to breaking changes. This approach ensures compatibility as the specification continues to evolve.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~319-~319: ‘at the present time’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like thi...(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_AT_THE_PRESENT_TIME)
Line range hint
331-349: Consider adding a code example for credential verificationThe verification section would benefit from a practical example showing how to use the
Credential.Verify()function with a metadata provider. This would help implementers better understand the verification process.Would you like me to provide a code example demonstrating credential verification with a metadata provider?
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~319-~319: ‘at the present time’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like thi...(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_AT_THE_PRESENT_TIME)
[style] ~329-~329: To make your writing clearer, consider a more direct alternative.
Context: ...e, and only store the
individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions.St...
(AS_A_MEANS_TO)
329-329: Improve phrasing for clarityConsider revising this line for more direct communication:
-individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions. +individual flags for performing compliance-related decisions.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~329-~329: To make your writing clearer, consider a more direct alternative.
Context: ...e, and only store the
individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions.St...
(AS_A_MEANS_TO)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
README.md(1 hunks)webauthn/credential.go(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- webauthn/credential.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
README.md
[style] ~319-~319: ‘at the present time’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like thi...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_AT_THE_PRESENT_TIME)
[style] ~329-~329: To make your writing clearer, consider a more direct alternative.
Context: ...e, and only store the
individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions.
St...
(AS_A_MEANS_TO)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
README.md (1)
Line range hint 316-349: Documentation changes look good!
The new sections effectively document the credential flags functionality, storage recommendations, and verification process. The content is well-structured and provides valuable guidance for implementers.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~319-~319: ‘at the present time’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like thi...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_AT_THE_PRESENT_TIME)
[style] ~329-~329: To make your writing clearer, consider a more direct alternative.
Context: ...e, and only store the
individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions.
St...
(AS_A_MEANS_TO)
This adds a new function NewCredentialFlags which is leveraged by us to derive the flags that the spec requires implementers store. The addition of this function ensures that added functionality or flags that need to be stored can relatively easily and painlessly be stored and restored by third parties.
james-d-elliott
force-pushed
the
feat-protocol-values
branch
from
00e78c9 to
b5ecd1d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
README.md (3)
316-330: Improve clarity and grammar in the Flags sectionThe technical content is accurate, but the text could be clearer. Consider these refinements:
-It's important to note that the recommendations and requirements for flag storage have changed over the course of the -evolution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like this available for -easy storage however we also make the Protocol Value available. At such a time as these recommendations or requirements -change we will adapt accordingly. The Protocol Value is a raw representation of the flags and as such is resistant to -breaking changes whereas the other flags or lack thereof may not be. +The recommendations and requirements for flag storage have evolved throughout the WebAuthn specification's development. +Currently, we provide both classified flags for easy storage and the Protocol Value. While we will adapt the classified +flags as specifications change, the Protocol Value, being a raw representation of the flags, remains resistant to +breaking changes. -Implementers are therefore encouraged to use +Therefore, implementers should use🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~319-~319: ‘at the present time’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like thi...(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_AT_THE_PRESENT_TIME)
[uncategorized] ~320-~320: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...lassified like this available for
easy storage however we also make the Protocol Value...(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
[uncategorized] ~328-~328: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...using the individual flags to store the value store the Protocol Value, and only stor...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
[style] ~329-~329: To make your writing clearer, consider a more direct alternative.
Context: ...e, and only store the
individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions.N...
(AS_A_MEANS_TO)
331-347: Add impact assessment details to the Notable Changes sectionThe section effectively explains the breaking change, but consider adding:
- How to identify affected credentials
- Estimated impact on different types of deployments
- Recommended testing approach before applying changes
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~346-~346: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...observed.The values can be obtained prior to validating the parsed response similar ...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)
[uncategorized] ~346-~346: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...obtained prior to validating the parsed response similar to the example below:... (AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA) </details> </details> --- `348-374`: **Fix code example formatting** The code example is helpful, but contains formatting inconsistencies: 1. Replace hard tabs with spaces for consistent rendering 2. Consider adding error handling for the `NewCredentialFlags` call 3. Add a comment explaining what to do with the `flags` value after obtaining it ```diff func FinishLogin(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { // Abstract Business Logic: Get the WebAuthn User. user := datastore.GetUser() // Abstract Business Logic: Get the WebAuthn Session Data. session := datastore.GetSession() parsedResponse, err := protocol.ParseCredentialRequestResponse(r) if err != nil { // Handle Error and return. return } // Handle updating the appropriate credential using the flags value. flags := webauthn.NewCredentialFlags(parsedResponse.Response.AuthenticatorData.Flags) + + // Update the credential's flags in your storage + credential := user.GetCredential() // Get the credential to update + credential.Flags = flags + user.UpdateCredential(credential) }🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
352-352: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
353-353: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
354-354: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
355-355: Column: 1
Hard tabs(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
README.md(1 hunks)webauthn/credential.go(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- webauthn/credential.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
README.md
[style] ~319-~319: ‘at the present time’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ution of the WebAuthn specification. We at the present time only make the flags classified like thi...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_AT_THE_PRESENT_TIME)
[uncategorized] ~320-~320: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...lassified like this available for
easy storage however we also make the Protocol Value...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
[uncategorized] ~328-~328: A comma might be missing here.
Context: ...using the individual flags to store the value store the Protocol Value, and only stor...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_PUNCTUATION_COMMA)
[style] ~329-~329: To make your writing clearer, consider a more direct alternative.
Context: ...e, and only store the
individual flags as a means to perform compliance related decisions.
N...
(AS_A_MEANS_TO)
[style] ~346-~346: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...observed.
The values can be obtained prior to validating the parsed response similar ...
(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)
[uncategorized] ~346-~346: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...obtained prior to validating the parsed response similar to the example below:
...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
</details>
</details>
<details>
<summary>🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)</summary>
<details>
<summary>README.md</summary>
352-352: Column: 1
Hard tabs
(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
---
353-353: Column: 1
Hard tabs
(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
---
354-354: Column: 1
Hard tabs
(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
---
355-355: Column: 1
Hard tabs
(MD010, no-hard-tabs)
</details>
</details>
</details>
</details>
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->
This adds a new function NewCredentialFlags which is leveraged by us to derive the flags that the spec requires implementers store. The addition of this function ensures that added functionality or flags that need to be stored can relatively easily and painlessly be stored and restored by third parties.