Repository navigation
chore: remove daemon token authentication - #43
Conversation
The Ed25519 JWT verifier was only reachable through the sandd-controller binary and FFI removed in InftyAI#42; the Python Server never enabled it. Authz is expected to move to Keycloak, whose tokens need different verification, so drop the verifier, the jsonwebtoken dependency and the daemon's SANDD_TOKEN bearer header rather than keep dead code. Empty daemon ids are still refused. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Signed-off-by: kerthcet <kerthcet@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.
An organization owner can choose the repository organization as the billing source for reviews requested by members with a paid Copilot license. Learn about Copilot code review billing. Review the Copilot code review billing settings.
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars. ⚙️ Run configuration
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
InftyAI-Agent
added
needs-triage
|
/lgtm |
InftyAI-Agent
added
lgtm
InftyAI-Agent
left a comment
InftyAI-Agent
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved: PR has both lgtm and approved labels
InftyAI-Agent
left a comment
InftyAI-Agent
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved: PR has both lgtm and approved labels
The Ed25519 JWT verifier was only reachable through the sandd-controller binary and FFI removed in #42; the Python Server never enabled it. Authz is expected to move to Keycloak, whose tokens need different verification, so drop the verifier, the jsonwebtoken dependency and the daemon's SANDD_TOKEN bearer header rather than keep dead code. Empty daemon ids are still refused.
What this PR does / why we need it
Which issue(s) this PR fixes
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?