CTM-384 Fix miscalculated "expires in" value - #4928
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #4928 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 73.87% 73.86% -0.01%
===========================================
Files 131 131
Lines 11207 11208 +1
Branches 957 924 -33
===========================================
Hits 8279 8279
- Misses 2928 2929 +1
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Harness.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
same as `LeonardoTestUtils.deleteRuntime`
| // test(googleProject, createAppRequest(AppType.Galaxy, "Galaxy-Workshop-ASHG_2020_GWAS_Demo", None), true, true) | ||
| // } | ||
|
|
||
| "create CROMWELL app, delete it and re-create it with same disk" taggedAs (Tags.SmokeTest, Retryable) in { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really part of this PR, but while you are at it am I good with removing the Rstudio test below too since we no longer support it, or I can do it as part of my biker GKE/AKS cleanup later
| override def requireUserInfo: Directive1[UserInfo] = | ||
| override def requireUserInfo: Directive1[UserInfo] = { | ||
|
|
||
| // `expires_in` has undefined behavior from upstream and can mean expires AT (absolute) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah we take a JWT absolute timestamp exp and relabel it as a relative duration oidc_claim_expires_in.
2 participants
Infosec flagged this as a cookie that lasts too long, and it's the result of a semantics issue with expiration.
I am separately looking into where
OIDC_CLAIM_expires_ingets set upstream, as this may affect lots of apps and it would be good to fix it at the source.Also tried to robustify a test that failed on my previous merge to Dev with #4927 (flakey tests suck).