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

Review Authentication scheme to see if we should move to using Basic authentication (introduced in 9.0+) #65

Open
devraj opened this issue Dec 26, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@devraj
Copy link
Member

devraj commented Dec 26, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The Gallagher CC documentation states that it accepts Basic authentication as of v9.0+

There are two ways you can pass the API key to the server: following an authorisation method of GGL-API-KEY, or (in 9.0 or later) in the style of HTTP Basic authentication: prefixed with a colon, Base64-encoded, and following an authorisation method of Basic.

as opposed the original custom header.

Should we move to using Basic authentication instead of the custom header?

Describe the solution you'd like
Investigate if using Basic authentication is preferable to the custom header and retrofit the authentication scheme in the utilities of the API client.

Note that exclusively moving to Basic authentication will render this library useless for older versions of the command centre.

It would be preferable to make Basic authentication the standard and the user of the library be able to pass a flag to use the custom header.

Describe alternatives you've considered
NA

Additional context
NA

@devraj devraj added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 26, 2024
@devraj devraj added this to the alpha-finalisation milestone Dec 26, 2024
@devraj devraj self-assigned this Dec 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant