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

[csharp-netcore] Fix: Add only first Authorization header #11272

Conversation

Anakael
Copy link
Contributor

@Anakael Anakael commented Jan 11, 2022

This PR fix problem in csharp-netcore client with invalid(multiple) authorization header if more than one security present in spec file.

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Create new C# web project with bearer auth scheme which consumes access_token and put Authorize attribute on test controller
  2. Install Swashbuckle to project
  3. Add Bearer and OAuth schemes to swagger via AddSecurityRequirement
  4. Generate csharp-netcore client against spec
  5. Put AccessToken in Configuration for generated client
  6. Call request on generated client <-- 401 here

Solution:

Pass only one Authorization header. Which one will be chosen from first met scheme.

PR checklist

  • Read the contribution guidelines.
  • Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
  • Run the following to build the project and update samples:
    ./mvnw clean package 
    ./bin/generate-samples.sh
    ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh
    
    Commit all changed files.
    This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master.
    These must match the expectations made by your contribution.
    You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*.
    For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH.
  • File the PR against the correct branch: master (5.3.0), 6.0.x
  • If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.

@Anakael
Copy link
Contributor Author

Anakael commented Jan 11, 2022

@mandrean @frankyjuang @shibayan @Blackclaws @lucamazzanti

@wing328
Copy link
Member

wing328 commented Jan 11, 2022

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants