Add Multi-Version Support To Federation Mappings¶
Our current mapping implementation was designed to take data out of a SAML2 assertion and provide a very crude way to use that data to define the user and groups. We should have a proper way to extend the mapping syntax and not have to worry about breaking existing mappings. Adding a version to the mapping will allow us to make changes that are not backward compatible as needed.
Currently there is no way to make changes that are not backward compatible. For example, it would be nice to fix some of our mapping warts such as:
Not all remote rules provided an entry in the data that is used by the local rules. This causes confusion for new users and forces a bit of duplication in the remote rules.
In many different conversations with many different people, I’ve heard the need to extend mapping. Sometimes the new feature would be backward compatible and sometimes not. Here is an idea of what I have heard (these things are not going to be implemented by this spec):
Direct mapping from a remote rule into the assertion data. Currently you add an entry in the remote section to match something our of the environment and make it available via index in the local rule. Why not just have the local rule grab the data directly?
Allow transformation using something like Jinja filters to make it possible to do some basic changes to the data. For example, (un)urlencoding, lower/upper casing, etc.
There are lots more and I could probably talk about it for quite a while. I’m not going to because I don’t know how many of those cases have real customer use cases and who/when they would be worked on. They are really just evidence that there are potential changes coming that will only be possible if the mappings have a version.
Change the federation backend interface for mapping to allow an optional version.
Change the API to allow an optional version for the mapping.
(Optional in this cycle) Provide the code architecture for dispatching to different implementations of the mapper based on the version.
Any time a version is not specified we’ll use “1” as the version.
Add the mapping to the mapping rules themselves. This would no longer need any database changes. The caveat is that since our top level JSON rule structure is an array we’d either have to make significant changes to make it an object or we would have to put version information in every rule in the array. Putting a version in every rule in the array means that a single rule document could have multiple versions of rules.
Do nothing. Do not allow any significant change to the mapping syntax and let it die on the vine.
None. At this point we are not changing the mapping in any way that would cause changes to how the mappings generate users or groups.
Other End User Impact¶
Other Deployer Impact¶
None. We are just enabling future changes that will expand what a deployer can do with mappings.
- Primary assignee:
See the Proposed Change for a detailed list of work items.
The change won’t require anything specific for the docs team. Though, a “nice to have” change would be to direct people to start explicitly specifying the version.
Future changes to the mapping engine will require documentation changes, but those will also have their own specifications.