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

Setting necessary for allowing custom authentication/transport for http backend #163

Open
alex-kowalczyk opened this issue Mar 28, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@alex-kowalczyk
Copy link

alex-kowalczyk commented Mar 28, 2022

Current architecture does not allow for any other authentication than 'static' HTTPBasicAuth user+password. It is impossible to authenticate MJML server via API Keys, OAuth2, custom auth header without monkey-patching or forking the code.

Simplest idea: there could be provided a new MJML_HTTP_TRANSPORT setting with a string being dotted module path to a transport function, accepting kwargs: url, auth, data, headers, timeouts.
Such a config would allow users to procure custom authentication inside and call requests.post or any other transport from user's code. If not provided, requests.post could be used as-is.

Using dotted path string will avoid importing this function in settings.py - this follows typical django pattern. The transport function can be imported lazily before use through django.utils.module_loading.import_string

@liminspace
Copy link
Owner

@alex-kowalczyk Is there any MJML backed that uses API Keys or OAuth2?

@alex-kowalczyk
Copy link
Author

@liminspace I don't think that backends support that authentication directly, but it is quite common for self-hosted setups to host services behind authentication proxy, for instance with OAuth2-based JWTs in Google Cloud. Custom transport allowing to plug any authentication would be useful to integrate with such self-hosted backends.

@Alexerson
Copy link

@liminspace would you be open for a PR for this?
We are hosting the MJML function in AWS Lambda with an API Gateway and one easy way to limit access to it would be to add ApiKey Auth.
There are 2 ways I seed that could handle this use-case:

I think the 2nd solution would be easy to implement and non-breakable. If you’re willing to consider it, I can propose a PR.

@liminspace
Copy link
Owner

@Alexerson sure, you can show your solution and I'll take it in implementing the feature

@Alexerson
Copy link

Thanks. See PR.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants