8000 Documentation changes for Passkeys by rmartinc · Pull Request #40728 · keycloak/keycloak · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Documentation changes for Passkeys #40728

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 27, 2025
Merged

Conversation

rmartinc
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #40705

The documentation changes for passkeys. In general just enabling the switch in the policy is enough. But I tried to explain a bit more how this works. If you think we need more images just let me know (only the images for default username and password form are added, the rest are exactly the same).

@rmartinc rmartinc requested a review from a team as a code owner June 26, 2025 07:40
Copy link
Contributor
@tnorimat tnorimat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rmartinc Hello, I added a tiny comment on the PR. I would appreciate if if you could check that.

@@ -4,8 +4,18 @@

{project_name} provides preview support for https://fidoalliance.org/passkeys/[Passkeys]. {project_name} works as a Passkeys Relying Party (RP).

Passkey registration and authentication are realized by the features of xref:webauthn_{context}[WebAuthn].
Therefore, users of {project_name} can do Passkey registration and authentication by existing xref:webauthn_{context}[WebAuthn registration and authentication].
Passkey registration and authentication are performed using the same features of xref:webauthn_{context}[WebAuthn]. More specifically *Passkeys* are related to xref:_webauthn_loginless[LoginLess WebAuthn] as they intent to avoid any password during login.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

as they intent to avoid might be as they intend to avoid ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, I will use try instead! Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!

@mposolda mposolda self-assigned this Jun 26, 2025
@mposolda
Copy link
Contributor

@rmartinc Nice! The docs is great IMO with lots of useful hints.

I have possibly just a small suggestion to add some more explicit NOTE that when there is Username Form used together with Password Form in a row, then the Password Form would be automatically considered as successful without user being asked for password in case that user authenticated in username-form by passkeys. It is already mentioned a bit, but IMO the dedicated note can makes sense to make this more clear and avoid any possible bug reports...

@tnorimat Thanks for your review as well!

@mposolda mposolda requested a review from andymunro June 26, 2025 12:00
@mposolda
Copy link
Contributor

@andymunro Do you please have a chance to review?

@rmartinc
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mposolda I don't want to a third note in the same paragraph (there is one to say that it's preview feature and another one for synced/device-bound passkeys). So I have explained that scenario in more detail in the point for the Username Form.

@mposolda
Copy link
Contributor

@rmartinc Sounds good, Thanks! Approving.

mposolda
mposolda previously approved these changes Jun 26, 2025
Closes keycloak#40705

Signed-off-by: rmartinc <rmartinc@redhat.com>
@rmartinc
Copy link
Contributor Author

Moving the deprecation note to the upgrading guide and a new note added in the release notes for the passkeys progress.

Copy link
Contributor
@ahus1 ahus1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the update to the the docs, this looks great to me. One small nitpick below (shouldn't block merging).

Co-authored-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Martin <rmartinc@redhat.com>
Copy link
Contributor
@ahus1 ahus1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you! Would be great to have it merged, even if Andrew's review comments would need to be handled in a follow-up - given that the release is scheduled for Monday.

Copy link
Contributor
@mposolda mposolda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rmartinc Thanks for the updates to the release notes and upgrading guide. LGTM

@ahus1 +1. I am merging this due the limited remaining time.

@andymunro If you have any review comments, feel free to create follow-up issue and/or PR if needed.

@mposolda mposolda merged commit 8624101 into keycloak:main Jun 27, 2025
54 checks passed
shawkins pushed a commit to shawkins/keycloak that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2025
Closes keycloak#40705

Signed-off-by: rmartinc <rmartinc@redhat.com>


Co-authored-by: Alexander Schwartz <alexander.schwartz@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Martin <rmartinc@redhat.com>
7D67 Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Documentation for passkeys for 26.3.0
4 participants
0