Skip to content

feat: API Catalog using client certificate to obtain API Doc - #4844

Draft
pavel-jares-bcm wants to merge 4 commits into
v3.x.xfrom
reboot/v3-catalog-using-x509
Draft

feat: API Catalog using client certificate to obtain API Doc#4844
pavel-jares-bcm wants to merge 4 commits into
v3.x.xfrom
reboot/v3-catalog-using-x509

Conversation

@pavel-jares-bcm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

This PR changes the current behaviour that API Catalog didn't provide any vcerification of the caller. Since this change all request to obtain API Doc will be signed by client certificate.

Linked to # (issue)
Part of the # (epic)

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • fix: Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • feat: New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • docs: Change in a documentation
  • refactor: Refactor the code
  • chore: Chore, repository cleanup, updates the dependencies.
  • BREAKING CHANGE or !: Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • PR title conforms to commit message guideline ## Commit Message Structure Guideline
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas. In JS I did provide JSDoc
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • The java tests in the area I was working on leverage @nested annotations
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

For more details about how should the code look like read the Contributing guideline

Signed-off-by: Pavel Jareš <Pavel.Jares@broadcom.com>
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the Sensitive Sensitive change that requires peer review label Jul 30, 2026
@sonarqubecloud

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
50.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Sensitive Sensitive change that requires peer review size/M

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant