Hi Prithvi, Sorry, but GH refuses to reopen PR 4405 because its branch has been force-pushed or something like that.
In the interest of making progress, let's not worry about it. Please open fresh PRs for all changes that got stuck in erroneously closed PRs and cross-reference them. Cheers, Dmitri. On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 7:25 PM Prithvi S <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > Ah, okay, got it. I closed https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5032. > Can > you try to reopen https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4405 now? Thanks! > Also this access privilege is confusing. This must be a project setting? > Can we have access to reopen it if it closes due to stale activity? > > Regards, > Prithvi S > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 4:30 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Prithvi, > > > > I cannot reopen [4405] either as you apparently have another PR using the > > same branch, i.e. [5032] :) > > > > Since [5032] is fresh, I suggest closing it and restoring the branch to > the > > PolarisPrincipal commits. Then the PR should be possible to re-open, I > > hope. > > > > [4405] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4405 > > > > [5032] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5032 > > > > Cheers, > > Dmitri. > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 6:54 PM Prithvi S <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dmitri, > > > > > > Thanks for checking this. That makes sense, I will change it to make > > > the auth layer forward to PolarisPrincipal properties. > > > Can you help reopen the PR? I don't seem to have access to reopen. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Prithvi S > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 6:25 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Prithvi, Alex, > > > > > > > > Re: SecurityIdentity, it is a Quarkus class and it is certainly fine > to > > > use > > > > it in infrastructure code that deals with technical authentication > > > aspects > > > > (e.g. in SecurityIdentityAugmentor). > > > > > > > > However, I'd like to avoid depending on SecurityIdentity in proper > > > Polaris > > > > code like the OPA Authorizer. > > > > > > > > I tend to think that the authentication layer should forward whatever > > > user > > > > information is necessary to PolarisPrincipal as optional attributes. > > OPA > > > > and other authorizers will then have the opportunity to consider > those > > > > attributes. > > > > > > > > This will decouple Polaris authorizers both from Quarkus-specific > code > > > and > > > > from PrincipalEntity. So the authorizers should be usable with any > IdP > > > > (internal or external) and not be affected by Quarkus upgrades. > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 5:15 AM Prithvi S < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, I understand now that the decoupling in PR #2307 was > > > > intentional > > > > > and that `PolarisPrincipal` should not assume a backing > > > `PrincipalEntity` > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > I'll **close PR #4405** and work on the `SecurityIdentity` > attribute > > > > > approach instead. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding of the approach: > > > > > 1. In `AuthenticatingAugmentor`, when a `PrincipalEntity` is > > available, > > > > add > > > > > it as an optional attribute to `QuarkusSecurityIdentity` (e.g., > > under a > > > > key > > > > > like `"org.apache.polaris.principal_entity"`) > > > > > 2. Update `OpaPolarisAuthorizer` and > `RangerUtils.getUserAttributes` > > to > > > > > check for this attribute in the `SecurityIdentity` and extract > > > > user-defined > > > > > properties from the `PrincipalEntity` when present > > > > > 3. `PolarisPrincipal` remains unchanged, no property merging > > > > > > > > > > Also can you help with below: > > > > > 1. Is the attribute key naming convention above acceptable, or is > > there > > > > an > > > > > existing pattern I should follow for `SecurityIdentity` attribute > > keys > > > in > > > > > Polaris? > > > > > 2. For `DefaultAuthenticator` when it constructs `PolarisPrincipal` > > > from > > > > > `PrincipalEntity`, should it also add the `PrincipalEntity` to > > > > > `SecurityIdentity` attributes at that point, or should this only > > happen > > > > in > > > > > `AuthenticatingAugmentor`? > > > > > 3. For the OPA test suite that currently builds principals with > > > > > user-defined properties should I update those tests to instead set > > the > > > > > `PrincipalEntity` attribute on `SecurityIdentity` and verify that > > > > > `OpaPolarisAuthorizer` picks up the properties from there? > > > > > 4. Should I add a helper method somewhere (e.g., > > > > > > `PolarisPrincipal.getPrincipalEntityFromIdentity(SecurityIdentity)`) > > to > > > > > encapsulate the attribute lookup, or is it better to keep the > lookup > > > > inline > > > > > in each consumer? > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if I'm on the right track and I'll proceed with the new > > PR. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Prithvi > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 8:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Prithvi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this thread! > > > > > > > > > > > > My stance on this matter remains unchanged: > > > > > > > > > > > > - PolarisPrincipal and PrincipalEntity should be decoupled. We > must > > > > > > avoid the assumption that a PrincipalEntity exists for every > > > > > > principal, especially in cases involving federated or detached > > > > > > principals. > > > > > > > > > > > > - In my view, the most effective method for propagating the > > > > > > PrincipalEntity is to treat it as an *optional* attribute within > > the > > > > > > SecurityIdentity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > how should we ensure user-defined properties are reliably > > forwarded > > > > > > across all authenticator implementations, not just > > > > > `DefaultAuthenticator`? > > > > > > > > > > > > Such a guarantee is likely unattainable. Because authenticators > are > > > > > > designed to be pluggable, custom implementations may be > completely > > > > > > unaware of PrincipalEntity. Consequently, any logic that requires > > the > > > > > > presence of a PrincipalEntity within the SecurityIdentity is > > > > > > fundamentally flawed and should be refactored to remove that > > > > > > requirement. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is your use case for retrieving the PrincipalEntity's > > attributes > > > > > > at runtime? Is it for auditing purposes or are you building some > > > > > > business logic on top of it? If the former, it should be fine to > > just > > > > > > log "null" if the entity is not present (and you can control the > > > > > > authenticator in use to make sure it will be present); if the > > latter, > > > > > > that would mean that your logic is now dependent on a specific > > > > > > authenticator's ability to produce a PrincipalEntity, which isn't > > > > > > great. In that case it may be safer to fetch the PrincipalEntity > > from > > > > > > the metastore explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2026 at 8:56 PM Prithvi S < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm opening this thread as suggested by @dimas-b in the review > of > > > PR > > > > > > #4405 ( > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4405), which touches > > > > > > authentication > > > > > > > and authorization behavior. @flyrain also flagged a prior > > dev-list > > > > > thread > > > > > > > from April 2026 on the same topic, so I want to make sure that > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > is continued here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background > > > > > > > `PolarisPrincipal.of(PrincipalEntity, …)` currently forwards > only > > > the > > > > > > > entity's *internal* properties (e.g. `client_id`) and silently > > > drops > > > > > any > > > > > > > *user-defined* properties set at principal creation time (e.g. > > > > > > > `region=northamerica`, `department=finance`). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a result, downstream consumers of > > > > `PolarisPrincipal.getProperties()` > > > > > > > never see user attributes, and ABAC policies written against > them > > > > never > > > > > > > match. This affects: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - `DefaultAuthenticator` : constructs `PolarisPrincipal` during > > > > > > > authentication > > > > > > > - `AuthenticatingAugmentor` : copies principal properties into > > > > > > > `QuarkusSecurityIdentity` attributes > > > > > > > - External authorizers : `OpaPolarisAuthorizer` and > > > > > > > `RangerUtils.getUserAttributes` consume these as user > attributes > > > for > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > evaluation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing OPA test suite already builds principals with > > > > user-defined > > > > > > > properties (e.g. `department=finance`), demonstrating the > > intended > > > > > > > contract, which the production code path cannot currently > honor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What PR #4405 does > > > > > > > The fix adds a `mergeEntityProperties()` helper that combines > the > > > > > > > `PrincipalEntity`'s user-defined and internal properties, and > > uses > > > > the > > > > > > > merged map when constructing `PolarisPrincipal` via the > > > > > > > `of(PrincipalEntity, …)` overload. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The design question raised: > > > > > > > @flyrain pointed out that in April 2026, @adutra raised a > concern > > > > that > > > > > > > `PolarisPrincipal` was *intentionally* decoupled from > > > > `PrincipalEntity` > > > > > > > (see PR #2307), and suggested an alternative approach: expose > the > > > > > > persisted > > > > > > > `PrincipalEntity` as a `SecurityIdentity` attribute rather than > > > > > widening > > > > > > > `getProperties()`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR #4405 takes the opposite direction by merging properties > > > directly > > > > > into > > > > > > > `PolarisPrincipal`. I want to understand whether this is > > acceptable > > > > or > > > > > > > whether the community prefers the `SecurityIdentity` attribute > > > > approach > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > questions I have, > > > > > > > 1. Was the decoupling of `PolarisPrincipal` from > > `PrincipalEntity` > > > > (PR > > > > > > > #2307) intended to prevent exactly this kind of property merge? > > If > > > > so, > > > > > > what > > > > > > > is the preferred mechanism for exposing user-defined principal > > > > > attributes > > > > > > > to downstream auth consumers? > > > > > > > 2. Is the `SecurityIdentity` attribute approach (exposing > > > > > > `PrincipalEntity` > > > > > > > directly) the right path, or are there other concerns with > that? > > > > > > > 3. Since authenticators are pluggable, how should we ensure > > > > > user-defined > > > > > > > properties are reliably forwarded across all authenticator > > > > > > implementations, > > > > > > > not just `DefaultAuthenticator`? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy to revise the approach based on community feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Prithvi S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
