Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow for application to fetch keys from AWS Secrets Manager #77

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Oct 25, 2023

Conversation

TheLydonKing
Copy link
Collaborator

-Added Functionality to fetch keys from AWS Secrets
-Added Changes to Config

@TheLydonKing TheLydonKing linked an issue Oct 5, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 5, 2023

JaCoCo code coverage report - scala:2.12.17

File Coverage [74.33%]
InMemoryKeyConfig.scala 100% 🍏
JWTService.scala 86.22% 🍏
ConfigProvider.scala 79.81%
KeyConfig.scala 70.65%
AwsSecretsManagerKeyConfig.scala 50.26%
Total Project Coverage 72.05% 🍏

Copy link
Collaborator

@dk1844 dk1844 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the idea, maybe just polish up the code by breaking it into some reasonable structures.

Btw what happened to the idea of including the AWS Secrets support in another module?

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@TheLydonKing TheLydonKing self-assigned this Oct 11, 2023
@TheLydonKing
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dk1844 I've implemented the requested changes. Should be a lot neater now.

@TheLydonKing
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I like the idea, maybe just polish up the code by breaking it into some reasonable structures.

Btw what happened to the idea of including the AWS Secrets support in another module?

Had a bit of trouble figuring out how to implement this for a REST Service. Makes sense to me for a library but couldn't figure out a way to include this to the service regarding imports? Unless we expect the user to make code changes in order to choose one or the other? I'll make a new issue for separating the modules but for now, I just want to do this implementation so that we have the functionality.

@TheLydonKing TheLydonKing marked this pull request as ready for review October 12, 2023 10:39
Copy link
Collaborator

@dk1844 dk1844 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks better, thanks for the updates. There are still some things to discuss:

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@dk1844 dk1844 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just a few comments

Copy link
Collaborator

@dk1844 dk1844 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM codewise, but it fails for my local sbt test run. Does it run ok on your end, @TheLydonKing ?

@TheLydonKing
Copy link
Collaborator Author

LGTM codewise, but it fails for my local sbt test run. Does it run ok on your end, @TheLydonKing ?

Let me run quick and check

@TheLydonKing
Copy link
Collaborator Author

TheLydonKing commented Oct 24, 2023

LGTM codewise, but it fails for my local sbt test run. Does it run ok on your end, @TheLydonKing ?

@dk1844 it runs and passes tests on my side when I run sbt test:
Screenshot 2023-10-24 164320

It keeps running after the tests though, so maybe I need to kill the thread after the tests or something?

@TheLydonKing
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dk1844 The Tests should shutdown more gracefully now

Copy link
Collaborator

@dk1844 dk1844 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM (pulled, built, stb test-ran), can confirm behaves better in terms of gracefully closing

@TheLydonKing TheLydonKing merged commit dc4b034 into master Oct 25, 2023
2 of 3 checks passed
@dk1844 dk1844 deleted the feature/46-externalise-keys-storage branch October 31, 2023 10:25
@TheLydonKing TheLydonKing linked an issue Nov 13, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
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.

Implement keys rotation Externalise keys storage
2 participants