Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
WalkthroughA new AuthZEN interoperability API documentation page is added to explain enabling the feature via flags, endpoint routes, request/response structures, batch evaluation semantics, search functionality, and implementation-specific notes. The sidebar navigation is updated to include this new documentation entry. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/content/interacting/authzen.mdx`:
- Around line 415-417: Update the docs to stop saying the `page` field is
"accepted but ignored" and instead add a prominent warning in each search
endpoint section (where `next_token`, `page`, and pagination are discussed) that
the API does not support pagination and the `page` parameter is unsupported;
explicitly instruct users to rely on opaque `next_token` if/when supported or
expect all results in a single response, and remove/replace any wording in the
`Pagination` paragraph that implies `page` is accepted to avoid misleading
users.
- Around line 427-429: The documentation uses two different casings for the same
header ("X-Request-ID" vs "X-Request-Id"); verify the actual implementation
behavior (the header returned by <ProductName/>) and then update the text so
both occurrences use the exact same header string (replace "X-Request-ID" or
"X-Request-Id" so they match the implementation) and ensure the ProductName
sentence references that same casing consistently throughout the doc.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 0002f2aa-a881-45d4-beab-47666b7f8e32
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/content/interacting/authzen.mdxdocs/sidebars.js
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds a new documentation page describing OpenFGA’s experimental AuthZEN API implementation and exposes it in the Docusaurus sidebar under “Interacting with the API”.
Changes:
- Added
docs/content/interacting/authzen.mdxcovering AuthZEN endpoints, examples, and implementation notes. - Added “AuthZEN API” to
docs/sidebars.jsunder the “Interacting with the API” section.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 11 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/sidebars.js | Adds a sidebar entry pointing to the new AuthZEN doc page. |
| docs/content/interacting/authzen.mdx | New MDX page documenting AuthZEN endpoints, behavior, and OpenFGA mapping. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Approved, but moving to draft so we don't accidentally merge it until openfga/openfga#2875 is released |
Pull request was converted to draft
Description
implementation of the AuthZEN specification — a standard API for authorization
interoperability defined by the OpenID AuthZEN working group.
Action Search, and Get Configuration
relation, resource → object)
What problem is being solved?
How is it being solved?
What changes are made to solve it?
References
Review Checklist
mainSummary by CodeRabbit