-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Load azure secret from vault in JAVA code #254
Changes from 12 commits
7a5464a
91fd594
144b0d2
2637d64
ebfd9f5
9c66795
0c52f3d
9daad39
270eff0
c047263
147fbc6
f502e35
07c64a4
33fe6d3
1969c7f
7762ef8
69577b4
d866607
ab1775c
b364d9c
7923d18
ea47ea1
2c404d7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ | |
import io.vertx.core.Handler; | ||
import io.vertx.core.Vertx; | ||
import io.vertx.core.json.JsonObject; | ||
import org.slf4j.Logger; | ||
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory; | ||
import io.vertx.ext.web.client.HttpResponse; | ||
import io.vertx.ext.web.client.WebClient; | ||
import io.vertx.ext.web.codec.BodyCodec; | ||
import org.slf4j.Logger; | ||
import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory; | ||
|
||
import java.io.IOException; | ||
import java.io.InputStream; | ||
|
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ public class CloudSyncOptOutStore implements IOptOutStore { | |
private final String remoteApiPath; | ||
private final String remoteApiBearerToken; | ||
|
||
public CloudSyncOptOutStore(Vertx vertx, ICloudStorage fsLocal, JsonObject jsonConfig) throws MalformedURLException { | ||
public CloudSyncOptOutStore(Vertx vertx, ICloudStorage fsLocal, JsonObject jsonConfig, String operatorKey) throws MalformedURLException { | ||
this.fsLocal = fsLocal; | ||
this.webClient = WebClient.create(vertx); | ||
|
||
|
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ public CloudSyncOptOutStore(Vertx vertx, ICloudStorage fsLocal, JsonObject jsonC | |
this.remoteApiPort = -1 == url.getPort() ? 80 : url.getPort(); | ||
this.remoteApiHost = url.getHost(); | ||
this.remoteApiPath = url.getPath(); | ||
this.remoteApiBearerToken = "Bearer " + jsonConfig.getString(Const.Config.OptOutApiTokenProp); | ||
this.remoteApiBearerToken = "Bearer " + operatorKey; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why are we changing this? It is also used directly above on line 55 There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. L55 is a different config. The value of "OptOutApiToken" should also be fetched from vault - actually it's just operator key. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok, but this would mean we are actually getting rid of the config setting for optout_api_token. In that case, we need to remove it from the code, and from all the config. This could be another ticket, but I don't think we should leave unused config settings in the code / config files There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I will remove OptOutApiTokenProp config first in this PR. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As for the places to set this env, I will create a ticket to track. |
||
} else { | ||
this.remoteApiPort = -1; | ||
this.remoteApiHost = null; | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should still scan and fail on critical. We can only publish if it is a public repo, so that is why the switch exists, but we should always scan.
As this is a public repo, i don't think we should even have the publish_vulerabilities switch - we should always scan and publish
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
NVM, got your point. I thought this is a follow up step of the vulnerability check, and depends on previous step's input. But it actually does the same check as Step
Generate Trivy vulnerability scan report
Will revert it back.