-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 57
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Very High] getDestination throws error after multitenant broker request #4932
Comments
Hi @maxpfab , The previous implementation (in v3.15.0) was actually a bug that we fixed in the later versions. In a multi-tenant scenario, when a user token is passed to If you get your JWT from an approuter, can you make sure that its using the same XSUAA instance that is bound to your application? You should see more info in the debug logs. You can turn them on by calling I would also recommend our debugging guide to get more insights into why the error occurs. |
Hello @deekshas8, What I read from this is that I still pass a JWT token, in my case a service broker token, and this is then resolved and gets the destinations from the XSUAA instance, right? Is there not somehow an automatic procedure that I no longer have to provide the token for such a technichal user request? Unfortunately, I cannot bind the JWT from the AppRouter instance, as this is a second service API, which should not communicate with a normal user. Thank you for you quick response :) Regards, |
Hi @maxpfab ,
The passed JWT is first verified by the XSUAA service instance that is bound to your application. The JWT's
No, in a multi-tenant app, a JWT is mandatory. Our documented here explains the setup required. I also found this blog that states some limitations with using the service broker approach. Maybe this gives some insights to your issue. |
Hi @deekshas8 , But if I have a second XSUAA instance with the plan broker, then this should also receive the JWT token from the subaccount. Unfortunately, this technical user is there to read data from the service. How can I then achieve what I need with technical access? |
Hi @maxpfab, generally speaking, binding the same XSUAA instance to your app and approuter is a hard requirement, otherwise, no matter your setup, the JWT validation will always fail. Please also be more precise in describing what exact setup you currently have, as this is very hard to grasp. Could you please outline, which application has bound which services to them (and if they are using the same instance of it) and is trying to connect to which service? You can orient your description based on this image. |
Hi @tomfrenken, What do you mean by saying that I should always link all XSUAA instances to the Approuter? Here is a short description of my service: What I understand from the statement above is that it should be enough to bind the XSUAA instance with type service broker to the approuter? My app is based on the SAP repo https://github.com/SAP-samples/btp-cap-multitenant-saas/blob/main/deploy/cf/mta.yaml, Regards, |
Hi @tomfrenken, is there any updated based on my problem? What I don't understand exactly, I have the service xsuaa instance which can access the destination service without problems, but the token of the broker which have the same subaccountid and issuer in the jwt token can't access the destinations. If this does not work, I would need a way to make this technical access anyway. Regards, |
Hi @tomfrenken |
Hi Experts,
I have a problem with the getDestination Method of the package @sap-cloud-sdk/connectivity version 3.18.0.
Every time when i try to call my endpoint of my CAP API with my service broker user, I get the following issue:
2024-08-14T13:15:51.31+0000 [APP/PROC/WEB/0] ERR [cds|317255b8-e617-4762-b58d-73c78ae07d8f] - Error: Could not find XSUAA service binding matching the token.
The construct is the following:
So what I want to achieve is to read the subscriber subaccount destination details with the technical user directly on the request.
On the version 3.15.0 it is still working. Keep in mind that this is a multitenant scenario.
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
I Attach the files for the sourcecode and also for the error which will occure.
Application Versions:
Impact / Priority
Only wanted to let you know that it is not working as expected.
It will be a problem in the future because if it is not fixed I need to stay on the version 3.15.0 in each of my implementations.
So when I want to publish a new version I would be happy if it is fixed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: