docs: add proxy certificate instructions for containerized deployments #8823
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
✅ Docs preview readyThe preview is ready to be viewed. View the preview File Changes 1 new, 8 changed, 0 removedBuild ID: ffaaf4fe256e7033a71fb371 URL: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/deploy-preview/ffaaf4fe256e7033a71fb371 |
the-gigi-apollo
force-pushed
the
gigi/dxm-431-instructions-for-adding-root-cert-to-router-container
branch
2 times, most recently
from
08542ff to
3455d3b
Compare
the-gigi-apollo
force-pushed
the
gigi/dxm-431-instructions-for-adding-root-cert-to-router-container
branch
from
2bba501 to
599c74e
Compare
…t-to-router-container
Co-authored-by: Gigi Sayfan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Coenen Benjamin <[email protected]>
This preserves the changes in the individual files, which can be nicer for later cherry-picking or review.
…rough externalize_header_map (#8828)
EOL of serverless plans remains Feb. 1, but a grace period until Feb. 15 has been implemented. This change clarifies the language of the discontinuation notice.
Current merge policies for `@authenticated`, `@requiresScopes` and `@policy` were inconsistent. If single subgraph declared a field with one of the directives then it would restrict access to this supergraph field regardless which subgraph would resolve this field (results in AND rule for any applied auth directive, i.e. `@authenticated` AND `@policy` is required to access this field). If the same auth directive (`@requiresScopes`/`@policy`) were applied across the subgraphs then the resulting supergraph field could be resolved by fullfilling either one of the subgraph requirements (resulting in OR rule, i.e. either `@policy` 1 or `@policy` 2 has to be true to access the field). While arguably this allowed for easier schema evolution, it did result in weakening the security requirements. Since `@policy` and `@requiresScopes` values are represent boolean conditions in Disjunctive Normal Form, we can merge them conjunctively to get the final auth requirements, i.e. ```graphql type T @authenticated { # requires scopes (A1 AND A2) OR A3 secret: String @requiresScopes(scopes: [["A1", "A2"], ["A3"]]) } type T { # requires scopes B1 OR B2 secret: String @requiresScopes(scopes: [["B1"], ["B2"]] } type T @authenticated { secret: String @requiresScopes( scopes: [ ["A1", "A2", "B1"], ["A1", "A2", "B2"], ["A3", "B1"], ["A3", "B2"] ]) } ``` This algorithm also deduplicates redundant requirements, e.g. ```graphql type T { # requires A1 AND A2 scopes to access secret: String @requiresScopes(scopes: [["A1", "A2"]]) } type T { # requires only A1 scope to access secret: String @requiresScopes(scopes: [["A1"]]) } type T { # requires only A1 scope to access as A2 is redundant secret: String @requiresScopes(scopes: [["A1"]]) } ``` Partial backport of apollographql/federation#3321 and apollographql/federation#3343 Co-authored-by: Sachin D. Shinde <[email protected]>
…satisfiability errors (#8847) This PR updates satisfiability error messaging to align more with JS code to facilitate validation. Specifically, this PR updates witness operation generation logic to include optional arguments.
) Restricts usage of `@authenticated`, `@policy` and `@requiresScopes` from being applied on interfaces, interface objects and their fields. GraphQL spec currently does not define any interface inheritance rules and developers have to explicitly redefine all interface fields on their implementations. At runtime, GraphQL servers cannot return abstract types and always return concrete output types. Due to the above, applying auth directives on the interfaces may lead to unexpected runtime behavior as they won't have any effect at runtime. Backport of apollographql/federation@faea2d1
Co-authored-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: copilot-swe-agent[bot] <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: abernix <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jesse Rosenberger <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Parker <[email protected]>
…ollo-rust-builder docker tag to v0.28.0 (#8691) Co-authored-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Correct validation to include validation of object fields and nested objects.
…t-to-router-container
Contributor
|
Does proxy-certificates.mdx need to be added to the sidebar? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ref dxm-431 instructions for adding root cert to router container