feat(rest): Add support for AWS SigV4 signing#2311
Open
rchowell wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
Open
feat(rest): Add support for AWS SigV4 signing#2311rchowell wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
rchowell wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
What changes are included in this PR?
signingmod inside therestmod.HttpRequestSignertrait for signing headers.Are these changes tested?
Additional Context
There are several PRs in this space, and I did my best to consolidate them all into this.
(1) #917
This is the first and @phillipleblanc suggested an implementation without the aws crates.
(2) #1241
This is the reqwest approach, but @xxchan found a bug in url encoding. It uses reqsign-aws-v4.
(3) #2088
This is a nice approach for more general auth, and it may be best to have a discussion on the design so that a large PR like this is reviewable. This new PR is intentionally smaller in scope to hopefully close at #1236.
(4) mdub@4400539
Credit to @mdub here which was the latest reference on the issue. It's a reqwest-based approach. I've adapted this based on the discussions in (1) and (2).