Repository navigation
Device code auth - #7093
Open
maksim-zuev-db wants to merge 8 commits into
Open
Device code auth#7093maksim-zuev-db wants to merge 8 commits into
maksim-zuev-db wants to merge 8 commits into
Conversation
Collaborator
Integration test reportCommit: 556ea93
Top 3 slowest tests (at least 2 minutes):
|
maksim-zuev-db
force-pushed
the
device-code
branch
from
October 19, 2026 12:07
fd59775 to
34ed39b
Compare
maksim-zuev-db
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 19, 2026 12:15
| // workspace hosts, which must not change the default profile name. | ||
| probe := *authArguments | ||
| probe.Host = auth.ExtractHostQueryParams(probe.Host).Host | ||
| if needsAccountIDPrompt(probe.Host, probe.DiscoveryURL) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a weird function to call here. Based on the name it feels like a function that's designed to be used for prompting for information.
Is this the right option?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I renamed the function, as it checked account/unified host under the hood
Comment on lines
+56
to
+66
| func CheckDeviceCodeSupported(ctx context.Context, workspaceHost string) error { | ||
| supplier := &BasicOAuthEndpointSupplier{Client: httpclient.NewApiClient(httpclient.ClientConfig{})} | ||
| endpoints, err := supplier.GetWorkspaceOAuthEndpoints(ctx, workspaceHost) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("fetching OAuth endpoints: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
| if endpoints.DeviceAuthorizationEndpoint == "" { | ||
| return ErrDeviceCodeNotSupported | ||
| } | ||
| return nil | ||
| } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this function if we made the same check at line 83 in DeviceCodeChallenge?
I assume we would fail a bit later in the flow but would that cause problems? On the other end, we can avoid making a (potentially unnecessary) API call.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea is to fail fast. Otherwise the login flow starts creating a profile, asks for the name. After entering it fails because the host is unsupported, but we were able to check this at earlier steps.
| // confirmation code leaves the device code valid, so the user can re-enter | ||
| // it up to maxConfirmationAttempts times. Only workspace hosts are supported. | ||
| // The caller is responsible for storing the returned token. | ||
| func (a *PersistentAuth) DeviceCodeChallenge(confirm ConfirmFunc) (*oauth2.Token, error) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to pass the function as an argument? What would be the downside of calling the function directly?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
libs/auth/u2m is a library and doesn't depend on cmdio, so the prompt UX stays in cmd/auth (promptForConfirmationCode). The function argument also lets the unit tests in device_code_test.go script the retry and error cases (8+ call sites) without stdin.
Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
The server answers a rate-limited device code token request with invalid_request too, but with HTTP 429. Entering the confirmation code again cannot fix that, so end the login for any error other than HTTP 400 with invalid_request. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
The device code host check uses it to reject account and unified hosts, not to decide whether to prompt. Keep needsAccountIDPrompt as a local variable where setHostAndAccountId decides to prompt. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
CheckDeviceCodeSupported fetched the OIDC endpoints with its own client and repeated the check DeviceCodeChallenge makes. Make it a PersistentAuth method that runs the same deviceCodeConfig as DeviceCodeChallenge, so the up-front check and the login cannot disagree. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
Group the cases so that a failing test name points at the broken step: preconditions, the successful login (with a host, from a saved profile and with --scopes), unsupported hosts, an unallowed client, and missing or wrong confirmation codes. Only the nominal test prints the device code requests, because the requested scope is what it checks; the unsupported host test checks that no device authorization request is made. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
maksim-zuev-db
force-pushed
the
device-code
branch
from
October 22, 2026 11:28
751bb77 to
cbd3d8f
Compare
Contributor
|
Commit: Regression test reportSelected 5 changed tests (limit=20, 0 not selected) 5 tests: regression=5 unreleased=0 coverage=0 failing=0
TestAccept/cmd/auth/login/use-device-code-client-not-allowed: branch ✅ | main (66fce77) ❌ | latest (v1.22.1) ❌main (66fce77): latest (v1.22.1): same output as main (66fce77) TestAccept/cmd/auth/login/use-device-code-nominal: branch ✅ | main (66fce77) ❌ | latest (v1.22.1) ❌main (66fce77): latest (v1.22.1): same output as main (66fce77) TestAccept/cmd/auth/login/use-device-code-precondition: branch ✅ | main (66fce77) ❌ | latest (v1.22.1) ❌main (66fce77): latest (v1.22.1): TestAccept/cmd/auth/login/use-device-code-unsupported-host: branch ✅ | main (66fce77) ❌ | latest (v1.22.1) ❌main (66fce77): latest (v1.22.1): same output as main (66fce77) TestAccept/cmd/auth/login/use-device-code-wrong-code: branch ✅ | main (66fce77) ❌ | latest (v1.22.1) ❌main (66fce77): latest (v1.22.1): |
The prompt's handling of a timed-out context is covered by unit tests, and keeping stdin open in the acceptance test cost 5 seconds per run. Co-authored-by: Isaac <no-reply@databricks.com>
This branch has not been deployed
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
3 participants
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.
Changes
Implementation of device code auth flow. The backend implementation is still not finalized in production, so this change introduces
--use-device-codeflag as experimental, hidden underDATABRICKS_CLI_DEVICE_CODEenv variable.Why
The Device Code flow enables users to authenticate with the Databricks CLI on machines that don't have browser access (e.g. headless servers, SSH sessions, web terminals). Instead of the standard browser-redirect OAuth flow, the user authenticates on a separate device (e.g. their phone or laptop) by entering a short code.
Tests
auth loginhelpers, includingedge cases like expiry, retries and cancellation.
libs/testserver, which nowmodels Databricks' device code flow. Confirmation codes are piped through
stdin. The tests cover the successful login and each error scenario.