Conversation
wkentdag
left a comment
wkentdag
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo, add a detail to google SMTP section
Co-authored-by: wkd <3254957+wkentdag@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: wkd <3254957+wkentdag@users.noreply.github.com>
…nctuarycomputer/dome-fm into rfcs/2023-12-19-ADMIN_AUTH.md
wkentdag
left a comment
wkentdag
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great! Left a couple comments, the only one that I think is in-scope for this RFC is the question about handling instance ownership updates. With a bit more detail in that section I think this is good to go!
| **Note:** Rather than providing an open SMTP server for the instance to authenticate and | ||
| connect to, we'll offer an API that triggers a pre-formatted authentication email (rather | ||
| than an open SMTP server which could be more widely abused). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this flow be any different in the future, when an artist could supply their own SMTP creds? Seems like a safe assumption to me...I guess somebody might want to override the rate limit in this case, but can't imagine why 5/hr wouldn't be sufficient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ya, if an artist supplies their own SMTP creds, we'd essentially "undock" the instance, and their auth email flow would just go direct to their instance.
& Ya, a rate limiter wouldn't be quite as important in that internal case because it's all internal requests (not a public API)
| we'll ask the Dome.fm instance if it's registered itself (we'll likely check the PostgresQL | ||
| database for a `MothershipAPIKey`, ie `const hasMothershipAPIKey = !!(await prisma.mothershipAPIKey.findMany())[0]`) | ||
|
|
||
| 2. If `false`, we'll `POST https://developers.dome.fm/instance-api/[...domeInstanceVersion]/instances` with a body |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'll probably want to version this API since instances could be stale.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ya that's why [...domeInstanceVersion] is in the URL path! The instance must pass it's own version so that we can ensure we don't break compat :)
| In order to ensure we only send magic link emails to the appropriate instance admins (and not | ||
| a malicious user), we'll check that the `email` field given is actually a known admin by the | ||
| Mothership API. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we'll check that the
Mothership API.
Could you add a bit more detail on how we'd perform this check? I assume that the Mothership would store the owner included with requests to the /instances endpoint. In order to support ownership changes / multiple admins on a single instance, we'll also need to notify the Mothership when there are changes to the instance "team".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you add a bit more detail on how we'd perform this check? I assume that the Mothership would store the owner included with requests to the /instances endpoint.
Correct. The Instance - has_many -> Administrator (role: owner)
In order to support ownership changes / multiple admins on a single instance, we'll also need to notify the Mothership when there are changes to the instance "team"
Ya, exactly. Annoying I know but ultimately good for the ecosystem's security.
The instances will need to sync their state against the mothership API periodically. It could be done on a per-request basis, but honestly I'm kinda thinking a better way to do that would be to periodically pg_dump the entire instance DB and send it to the mothership.
Why? That's kinda heavy handed...
Well because if we want to support a player app & centralized discovery (ie, dome.fm/search-artists) we'd need to essentially copy the entire DB of the instance anyhow. & If a fan logs into a player app, we'd need to know everything they've bought from various Dome instances... which requires us to aggregate everything into one big collection to power that experience.
(Of course, this periodic sync could be "turned off", ie, you could "undock" your instance completely, but you'd be excluded from centralized discovery & player app)
cc @wkentdag
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool. That makes sense to me. Certainly a reasonable place to start anyway, we could make it more surgical down the line if necessary.
2 participants
See here for the Rendered Markdown