necouchman commented on code in PR #931:
URL: https://github.com/apache/guacamole-client/pull/931#discussion_r1394541107
##########
guacamole/src/main/java/org/apache/guacamole/tunnel/StandardTokenMap.java:
##########
@@ -102,6 +115,13 @@ public StandardTokenMap(AuthenticatedUser
authenticatedUser) {
else
put(USERNAME_TOKEN, authenticatedUser.getIdentifier());
+ if (get(USERNAME_TOKEN).contains("\\")) {
+ put(USERNAME_DOMAIN_TOKEN, get(USERNAME_TOKEN).split("\\\\")[0]);
+ put(USERNAME_ID_TOKEN, get(USERNAME_TOKEN).split("\\\\")[1]);
+ } else {
+ put(USERNAME_DOMAIN_TOKEN, "");
+ put(USERNAME_ID_TOKEN, get(USERNAME_TOKEN));
+ }
Review Comment:
> If there is to be a new standard token, I think there's some value in
having one token (GUAC_IDENTIFIER? GUAC_USER_IDENTIFIER?) that represents
validated identity while the other (GUAC_USERNAME) represents the username
provided during the auth process, if any.
Sure, that makes sense - it doesn't resolve the issue of getting the domain
portion out of the overall username, so if there's a need to have the domain,
that would still have to be handled - which seems more appropriate to be
LDAP-specific.
> I think that much is already possible with the functionality provided by
the ldap-user-attributes property.
Yeah, I was looking at that code, but also did a quick search of my local AD
environment and figured out that the domain is not (obviously) present in any
attribute without splitting it out of another attribute. So, again, if the
domain portion is desired/required, it would need to be something LDAP-specific.
If the desire is just to get the Guacamole identifier, I'm good with the
`GUAC_IDENTIFIER` route.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
