Supply an Option for an Authentication Backend #306
ghost
started this conversation in
Feature Requests
Replies: 1 comment
-
I did look into the visitor authentication suggestion in your docs, and took a look at the example code. Writing the code is not the problem, it's maintaining the code, and futzing about with all the rest that we want to pay you for! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
tl;dr: Please offer authentication back ends to the usual providers of OAuth2 services
Unfinished Business?
https://app.gitbook.com/o/<org id>/c/<collection id>/~/share/audience
shows an option for an Authentication backend. Right now the only option in the select isCustom
. This means an organization that wishes to only share documents with an authenticated user must:You'll end up with a plate with a little spaghetti on it, that is a bit more complicated than the example.
We were surprised that we ended up having to go outside
gitbook
to authenticate our user base and fiddle withJWT
. We ended up having to deploy it on/fromazure
, and otherwise lose half the gains in essential laziness achieved when we moved off of our internal markdown-based documentation system togitbook
.This was very nearly a show-stopper for our adoption of
gitbook
.The Unhelpful Lecture
Our particular authenticator was written in Python/Flask in a few hours. A "real" service using libraries that support multiple authorization services and branding (authlib and a judicious use of flask blueprints, respectively) would not take much longer to create. A "really real" service that can modularly support authentication sources with lots of tests and all the usual goodies might be knocked out in FastAPI in a few weeks. The language and platform are not important. What is important is that a client-facing configuration not much more complicated than what you have now could be finished and perhaps gain you some larger customers that have a less relaxed view of maintaining custom code just to safely distribute their own documentation. Love the product! Just wish we didn't have to write our own "Authentication backend".
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions